Dismissed

Ajitha Reji v. Federal Bank

DRT21 Aug 2025SA/563/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitization Application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's challenge against the bank's advertisement of demand notices and appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of secured assets, holding that statutory requirements under the SARFAESI Act were complied with.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application No. 563/2023 was dismissed, holding that the reliefs sought were not entitled. No order as to costs was passed.

Ajitha Reji versus Federal Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 21^st DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶4

PRESENT: Su. WILLYAHM, B.Sc., M.L. [DISTRICT JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

S.A No. 563 of 2023

¶6

Between

¶7

Ajitha Reji, W/o. Reji, Joy Homes, Kothedath, Thripunithura, Ernakulam -682 301.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

The Federal Bank Ltd.,

¶11

LCRD/Ernakulam Division, Rep. by its Authorized Officer and Vice President stationed at LCRD Federal Towers, Marine Drive,

¶12

Ernakulam – 682 031.

¶13

Authorized Officer.

¶14

The Federal Bank Ltd. LCRD/Ernakulam Division, LCRD, Federal Towers, Marine Drive,

¶15

Ernakulam -682 031.

¶16

--- Defendants

¶17

This Securitization Application coming on 29.07.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Shiv Shankar, Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Ms. Keerthy K. Narayan, Counsel appearing for the defendants and upon hearing arguments of learned

¶18

SA No.563 of 2023

¶19

Counsels for both the parties and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Securitisation Application was filed on 20.09.2023 seeking to set aside Annexure-A1 demand notice, Annexure-A4 Order and Annexure-A4 Advocate Commissioner notice.

¶22

There is no dispute with regard to availment of various credit facilities such as vehicle loan, housing loan, mortgage loan and personal loan by the applicant and her husband from the 1^st defendant bank upon creation of mortgage over the immovable property admeasuring 8.04 Ares situated in Re.Sy.Nos.1524/3-6, 524/22 at Thiruvankulam Village, Kanyannur Taluk, Ernakulam District.

¶23

The applicant has admitted their default in repayment of the outstanding loan due to the 1^st defendant bank. Hence the loan account of the applicant came to be classified as Non-performing Asset on 07.04.2019 and demand notice dated 1.07.2019 AnnexureA1 was issued to the applicant and her husband calling upon them to repay the outstanding loan due within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice.

¶24

According to the defendants, demand notice was received by the applicant and demand notice sent to the husband was returned with endorsement “as unclaimed” and for demand notice was published in ‘Deepika’ Edition dated 09.08.2019 and Indian Express edition dated 09.08.2019. Indisputably, the applicant and her husband neither sent any objection/representation to the demand notice nor did they clear off their liability due to the defendant bank.

¶25

Therefore, the defendants approached the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs) and filed application and affidavit Annexure A2 under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Order Annexure A3 dated 16.07.2022 came to be passed in M.C.No.289 of 2020 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued notice dated 19.01.2023 Annexure-A4 to the applicant and her husband informing them that he would take physical possession of the secured asset on 02.02.2023. The applicant having aggrieved against the above measures filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

¶26

The counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that Annexure A1 and Annexure A4 notices were issued without complaining with the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act,

¶27

Page 2 of 5

¶28

SA No.563 of 2023

¶29

2002 and that Annexure A2 application and affidavit is defective and Annexure A3 order is illegal and that possession notice was not issued and that description of the property and the amount shown in Annexures A1 and A2 is not correct. Deepika Edition is not having sufficient circulation in the locality. The applicant did not deposit the title deeds with intention to create charge over the property and hence it is not a secured asset. Therefore, SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶30

The counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that the applicant deposited the title deeds of her immovable property with the 1^st defendant bank as the collateral security for availment of housing loan and that mortgage was extended for mortgage loan and personal loan. Deepika daily news paper having sufficient circulation in the locality where the applicant and her husband are residing. All the details as contemplated under Section 13(3) were furnished in the demand notice. The description of the property in Annexure A1 and Annexure A2 is correct. The amount mentioned in Annexure A1 and Annexure A2 is also correct. All the statutory requirements stipulated in sub clauses (i) to (ix) of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, were complied with in respect of filing the application and affidavit. Therefore, the SA may be dismissed with cost to the defendants.

¶31

The applicant having deposited the title deeds pertaining to her immovable property which is the SA subject matter with the 1^st defendant bank as the collateral security for availment of the credit facilities is estopped from contending now that she has not created security interest over the property and that it is not a secured asset.

¶32

The petitioner has not placed any material before this Tribunal to prove her contention that the newspaper Deepika Daily is not having sufficient circulation in their locality. A perusal of Annexure A1 demand notice and Annexure A2 application shows that correct description of the secured asset has been furnished. The applicant has not pointed in the SA as to how the outstanding amount shown in Annexure A1 and Annexure A2 is incorrect. It is not mandatory for the defendants to issue possession notice under Section 13 (4) under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, before approaching the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, for taking physical possession of the secured asset.

¶33

A perusal of Annexure A2 affidavit shows that all the statutory requirements by furnishing their particulars such as availment of credit facilities by the applicant and her husband, upon creation of equitable mortgage over the applicant’s property, details of the secured asset, default in repayment of the outstanding loan due, issuance of demand notice to the applicant and her husband, receipt of the demand notice by the applicant, publication of demand notice in newspapers on account of unclaiming of demand notice by her husband, affixture of demand notice on the secured asset, non-

¶34

Page 3 of 5

¶35

SA No.563 of 2023

¶36

submission of representation/objection to the demand notice, outstanding loan due as on the date of filing of the application and affidavit, secured asset being fee of tenancy were complied with.

¶37

A perusal of Annexure A3 order shows that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam after having perused the contents of the affidavit and the documents filed in support of the affidavit and having satisfied over the same passed order appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset.

¶38

This Tribunal does not find any illegally or irregularity either in Annexure A2 affidavit or Annexure A3 order. Therefore, this Tribunal does not find any merit in the contention of the applicant that Annexure A1 demand notice, Annexure A3 order and Annexure A4 notice are liable to be set aside.

¶39

In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Tribunal holds that the applicant is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the SA.

¶40

In the result, SA No.563/2023 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21^st day of August, 2025.

¶42

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

al/

Page 4 of 5

SA No.563 of 2023

List of documents filed by the Applicant along with the S.A.

¶47

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	01.07.2019	Photocopy of the demand notice issued by the defendant.	Annexure-A1
2.	16.03.2020	Photocopy of application in MC No.289 of 2020 filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs) Ernakulam	Annexure-A2
3.	16.07.2022	Photocopy of the order in CMP No.2886 of 2022 in MC No.289/2020 filed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs)Ernakulam	Annexure-A3
4.	19.01.2023	Photocopy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner	Annexure-A4

¶48

List of documents filed by the defendants along with the written statement

¶49

Sl.	Date	Particulars
No.
1.	19.07.2023	True copy of the judgment in W.P. (C)	Annexure-B1
		No.18876/2023 of the Hon'ble High
		Court of Kerala.

(Su. WILLYAHM)

PRESIDING OFFICER

al/

Page 5 of 5

Ajitha Reji v. Federal Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajitha Reji v. Federal Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S a. B. Nimbalkar through Its Patner Shri Arun Bhaiyyaji Nimbalkar versus State Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus Achhar Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Hardeep Singh

Sandeep Singh Slathia versus Punjab National Bank

Jayaprakashan P versus Indian Overseas Bank

M/S C Gems and Jewels Pvt. Ltd. versus Punjab and Sind Bank