Dismissed

Rahul Murali v. Punjab National Bank

DRT17 Dec 2025SA/574/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed an application challenging securitization proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. It held that the demand notice was validly served via registered post to the address furnished by the borrower, and physical possession of the secured asset had already been taken, rendering claims of illegality baseless.

What did the court decide?

Application under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act dismissed without costs.

Rahul Murali versus Punjab National Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2025

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.574/2025

¶5

Between

¶6

Rahul Murali, Kanakkaparambil House, Annanad P.O., Thrissur – 680 309 …

¶7

And The Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, SASTRA, PNB House, Market Road, Ernakulam, PIN – 682 011. …Defendant

¶8

This Securitization Application having been heard on 20.11.2025 in the presence of Advocate Jithendran S. for the applicant and Advocate Umarani M.N. for the defendant and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶9

F I N A L O R D E R

¶10

Challenging the securitization proceedings initiated by the defendant under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’),

¶11

SA 574/2025

¶12

¶13

the applicant/co-borrower has filed this SA under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act praying to set aside the steps taken by the defendant under the SARFAESI Act.

¶14

Brief facts of the case :

¶15

2.1 The applicant along with his mother availed housing loan of Rs.63,20,000/- from the Oriental Bank of Commerce by mortgaging the subject matter property of an extent of 11.74 Ares of land. Subsequently the Oriental Bank of Commerce was amalgamated with the defendant bank. It is claimed in the SA that due to loss in business he could not repay the loan in time. Hence the defendant proceeded with the securitization proceeding which came to knowledge while he was working in UAE.

¶16

2.2. His grand-mother Ms.Saraswathi Amma filed a Writ Application bearing No.17730/2025 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala which was disposed giving opportunity to challenge the same before this Tribunal.

¶17

2.3 The applicant obtained copies of application and other materials filed by the defendant in a proceeding under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur. He came to know from such documents that the defendant initiated the securitization measure without complying statutory requirement and serving the demand notice to him. In such

¶18

SA 574/2025

¶19

¶20

premises the applicant has filed the SA praying to set aside the securitization proceeding.

¶21

3.1. On the other hand, the defendant has filed written statement denying the averments and claimed that due to default in repayment of the loan the securitization proceeding was initiated. The applicant and his mother Smt.Hemalatha Murali availed the loan by mortgaging the subject matter property of 11.74 Ares belonging to the mother of the applicant, which was created on 10.03.2015.

¶22

3.2. Due to non-repayment of the loan, the same was classified as ‘NPA’ and the demand notice was issued to the applicant and his mother. The demand notice issued to the applicant was received by his grandmother Ms.Saraswathi Amma residing with him at his house and the AD Card is produced in this case showing service of the demand notice. Due to non-repayment of the demanded amount within the stipulated time, the possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was taken after following all the statutory requirements.

¶23

3.3. Subsequently a proceeding under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was initiated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, which was disposed appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the secured asset. There is no illegality in the

¶24

SA 574/2025

¶25

¶26

securitization proceeding. In absence of any illegality, the applicant is not entitled to get any relief and the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

From the respective case of the applicant and defendant, the following points emerged for adjudication in this case:

¶28

(i) Whether the securitization proceeding initiated by the defendant suffers from any illegality or defect or irregularity to intervene with the same?

¶29

(ii) Whether the applicant is entitled to get any relief in this proceeding?

¶30

FINDINGS:

¶31

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):-

¶32

In this case the only question raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that no demand notice was served on the applicant and hence the securitization proceeding is vitiated.

¶33

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant would contend that the demand notice was issued at the address of the applicant furnished in the loan document and the same was received by the grand-mother by giving endorsement over the same as per authorization. So also the registered notice issued to mother of the applicant was received by Ms.Saraswathi Amma as per the authorization. Ms.Saraswathy Amma also filed a Writ Application before the Hon’ble High Court. The demand notice and

¶34

SA 574/2025

¶35

¶36

possession notice was duly served. No other illegality is pointed out by the applicant and hence the SA may be dismissed.

¶37

Admittedly the demand notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act was sent by the defendant by R.P. with AD to the address furnished by the applicant at the time of availing the loan. His grand-mother staying in the house received the same which is apparent from the postal acknowledgment card, marked Annexure-B2. The applicant has not disputed in the SA that the same was not served on his grand-mother and he was not authorised to receive the same. A registered notice sent to the address furnished by the borrower is presumed to have been duly served. The applicant could have challenged the same before the postal department or would have submitted objection stating that his grand-mother is not competent to receive the same. It is also seen from the record that his grand-mother approached the Hon’ble High Court challenging the securitization proceeding. In such premises the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant has no base to stand and the claim is not acceptable. No other point is raised by the learned counsel for the applicant about any illegality in the securitization proceeding.

¶38

The learned counsel for the defendant submitted during

¶39

argument stage that physical possession of the secured asset is

¶40

SA 574/2025

¶41

¶42

already taken. The same is not challenged in this proceeding. In such premises the applicant is not entitled to get any relief and both the points are answered against the applicant.

¶43

Hence it is ordered:-

¶44

ORDER

¶45

In view of the foregoing reasons, the SA, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.

¶46

(Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 17^th day of December, 2025.

¶47

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶48

SA 574/2025

¶49

¶50

Documents on the part of the applicant

¶51

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-A1	03.02.2025	Certified copy of CMP No.2281/2025
Annexure-A2	26.05.2025	Certified copy of the CJM Order.
Annexure-A3		True copy of passport entry.

¶52

Documents on the part of the defendant

¶53

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-B1	12.11.2024	True copy of the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.
Annexure-B2		True copy of the AD card.
Annexure-B3		True copy of the Judgment in Writ Petition WP(C) No.17730/2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala.
Annexure-B4		True copy of the possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.
Annexure-B5		True copy of the affixture report.
Annexure-B6		True copy of the notice sent to the applicant.
Annexure-B7	25.01.2025	True copy of the newspaper ‘Deepika’, Thrissur Edition.
Annexure- B7(a)	25.01.2025	True copy of the newspaper ‘The New Indian Express’, Thrissur Edition.
Annexure-B8		True copy of the computerized statement of account in respect of the Housing Loan facility (A/c. No.14976105007332 for the period from 12.03.2015 to 29.08.2025 along with certificate as per the Banker’s Books of Evidence Act, 1891.

¶54

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶55

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶56

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶57

Dated the 17^th December, 2025

¶58

SA No.574/2025

¶59

Between

¶60

Rahul Murali, Kanakkaparambil House, Annanad P.O., Thrissur – 680 309. …Applicant And

¶61

The Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, SASTRA, PNB House, Market Road, Ernakulam, PIN – 682 011. …Defendant

¶62

F I N A L O R D E R

Rahul Murali v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Murali v. Punjab National 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

Abdul Nasar versus Hdfc Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Gaurav Bhatia

Punjab National Bank versus Varun Bhatia

Suresh Kumar versus Canara Bank

Mrs Sharmee Saha versus Bank of Baroda

Sreenivas Sreedharan versus Indian Bank