Dismissed

Sreenivas Sreedharan v. Indian Bank

DRT17 Dec 2025SA/675/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant borrower challenged securitization proceedings by the bank, alleging non-registration of security interest on the CERSAI Portal. The Tribunal examined the defence record proving registration and dismissed the application as devoid of merit, rejecting the plea for an opportunity to repay via instalments.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed without costs; no direction given to bank to offer instalment settlement scheme.

Sreenivas Sreedharan versus Indian Bank — Consumer Protection | 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.675/2025

¶5

Between

¶6

Sreenivas Sreedharan, Aged 52 years, S/o. Sreedharan, VIII/15B, Illath Madom, Panagadu P.O., Ernakulam, PIN 682 506. …Applicant

¶7

And The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, MG Road Branch, 1^st Floor, Chandrika Building, Ernakulam, Kochi, PIN – 682 011. …Defendant

¶8

This Securitization Application having been heard on 25.11.2025 in the presence of Advocate Aype Joseph for the applicant and Advocate Sasidharan Nair 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

¶11

defendant under the provisions of the Securitization and

¶12

SA 675/2025

¶13

¶14

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’), the applicant/borrower has filed this SA under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act praying to set aside the securitization proceeding including the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner.

¶15

Brief facts of the case :

¶16

2.1 The SA is filed by the applicant stating that he along with his wife availed loan facility from the defendant bank in the year 2022 by creating mortgage by depositing of the title deed. Due to Covid-19 the income of the applicant was affected, and he could not repay the loan in time. Hence the defendant issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act dated 10.03.2025 after classifying the loan as “NPA” followed by issuance of possession notice.

¶17

2.2 Subsequently the defendant filed Crl. M.P. No.6505/2025 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur seeking assistance to take physical possession of the secured asset. Accordingly, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take possession of the secured asset. After getting notice from the Advocate Commissioner, this SA is filed by the applicant praying to set aside the securitization

¶18

SA 675/2025

¶19

¶20

proceeding including the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner with some consequential reliefs.

¶21

The defendant has filed written statement denying the averments and claimed inter alia that the applicant availed 4 loans from the defendant. The details are furnished in the written statement. Now the securitization proceeding is initiated in respect of the home loan of Rs.97,50,000/- availed by the applicant and his wife by creating security interest over the subject matter property. Due to default in repayment the securitization proceeding is initiated. There is no illegality in the proceeding. In absence of any illegality or material defect in the securitization proceeding, the SA may be dismissed.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

SA 675/2025

FINDINGS:

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

¶29

Both the points being interlinked with each other are taken up together for consideration. While hearing the learned counsel for the applicant contended that the security interest is not registered in the CERSAI Portal. Hence the securitization proceeding is bad under the provision of SARFAESI Act. Further it is stated that the applicant is ready to regularize the loan within a period of 6 months. Hence an opportunity may be given. On the other hand the learned counsel for the defendant would contend that the secured interest was duly registered in the CERSAI Portal. The relevant document is filed along with the written statement. The claim is not at all tenable. In the absence of any illegality, the SA may be dismissed.

¶30

Admittedly the applicant availed the loan by creating security interest over the subject matter property. But due to default, the defendant proceeded with the securitization proceeding. The applicant has not challenged any illegality in that proceeding nor the same is raised during hearing. Regarding the nonregistration of the secured interest the defendant has produced the relevant documents showing registration of the secured interest in

¶31

SA 675/2025

¶32

¶33

the CERSAI Portal which falsifies the claim of the applicant. In absence of any illegality or defect or irregularity in the securitization proceeding the applicant has no right to interfere with the said proceeding and he is not entitled to get any relief. If the applicant is interested to settle the claim, he may approach the defendant bank directly for said settlement. But this Tribunal cannot direct the defendant to give opportunity to the applicant to repay the loan by suitable instalments.

¶34

Hence it is ordered:-

¶35

ORDER

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

SA 675/2025

¶40

¶41

Documents on the part of the applicant

¶42

Annexures Date Particulars of documents Annexure-A1 10.03.2025 Section 13(2) notice. Annexure-A2 02.08.2025 Copy of petition filed before the CJM Court, Thrissur. Annexure-A3 14.08.2025 Order passed by the CJM Court, Thrissur in Crl. M.P. No.6505 of 2025. Annexure-A4 29.09.2025 Notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner with translation.

¶43

Documents on the part of the defendant

¶44

Annexures Date Particulars of document

¶45

Annexure-B1 Printout downloaded from the web site of Central Registry (CERSAI) regarding the registration of the mortgage with the Central Registry.

¶46

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶47

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶48

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH

¶49

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶50

Dated the 17^th December, 2025

¶51

SA No.675/2025

¶52

Between

¶53

Sreenivas Sreedharan, Aged 52 years, S/o. Sreedharan, VIII/15B, Illath Madom, Panagadu P.O., Ernakulam, PIN 682 506. …Applicant

¶54

And

¶55

The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, MG Road Branch, 1^st Floor, Chandrika Building, Ernakulam …Defendant

¶56

F I N A L O R D E R

Sreenivas Sreedharan v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreenivas Sreedharan v. Indian 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

Rahul Murali versus Punjab National Bank