Dismissed

Abdullakkutty v. Ponani Urban Co-operative Bank

DRT7 May 2025SA/678/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application seeking to set aside a possession notice and advocate commissioner notice under the SARFAESI Act. The court held the applicant failed to aver statutory non-compliance or challenge prior measures, rendering the challenge unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Application for setting aside possession notice and advocate commissioner notice dismissed.

Abdullakkutty versus Ponani Urban Co-operative Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 7^th DAY OF MAY, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 678 of 2023

¶6

Between

¶7

Abdullakkutty, S/o. Muhammed, Karumankuzhiyil House, Thandilam, Nariparambu P.O. Malappuram -679 573.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

The Ponnani Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. M.372, Head Office,

¶11

C.V. Junction, Ponnani Branch,

¶12

Malappuram – 679 582,

¶13

Represented by its Authorized Officer.

¶14

Ummu Habeeba (Member No.33493) W/o. Muhammed Siraj, Residing at Karumankuzhiyil House, Thandilam, Nariparambu P.O. Malappuram -679 573. (Borrower)

¶15

Muhammed Siraj (Member No.33567) S/o. Bava, residing at Karumankuzhiyil House, Thandilam, Nariparambu P.O. Malappuram -679 573. (Borrower)

¶16

Kunjumuhammed (Member No.26970) S/o. Alavi, residing at Alungal House, Moorchira, Kalady P.O. -679 582. (2^nd Guarantor) (S.A claim dismissed against D2 to D4 as per order dated 01.04.2025)

¶17

--- Defendants

¶18

SA No.678 of 2023

¶19

This Securitization Application coming on 01.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ms. Jinsamol M.A., Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Ms. Bindumol Joseph, Counsel appearing for the 1^st defendant Bank and upon hearing arguments of learned 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 14.11.2023 seeking to set aside Annexure-A1 Possession Notice, A2 application and A3 Advocate Commissioner notice and to declare that Annexure-A2 application and A3 Advocate Commissioner notice are not binding on applicant and to allow the cost of the proceedings from the 1^st defendant bank.

¶22

There is no dispute with regard to availment of housing loan to a tune of Rs.15,00,000/- by the defendants 2 and 3 and that the applicant and the 4^th defendant stood as guarantors for the aforesaid availment of credit facility. Creation of equitable mortgage over the immovable property admeasuring an extent of 13.85 cents in Re.sy. No.134/2 Kalady village, Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram district by the 3^rd defendant as the collateral security for the aforesaid credit facility is also admitted by the applicant.

¶23

Default in repayment of the outstanding loan due is also admitted by the applicant. Hence the loan account of the applicant and the defendants 2 to 4 came to be classified as Non-performing Asset on 29.06.2019.

¶24

The applicant has not averred in the S.A as to whether the demand notice was issued to the applicant and defendants 2 to 4. It is revealed from the perusal of the averment of the written statement of the 1^st defendant that demand notice dated 8.7.2021 was issued to the applicant and the defendants 2 to 4 calling upon them to repay the outstanding loan due within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice and that the applicant and the defendants 2 to 4 neither sent any objection/representation to the demand notice nor did they clear off their liability due to the 1^st defendant bank.

¶25

Issuance of Annexure-A1 possession notice dated 07.01.2021 and the receipt of the same is admitted by the applicant. Subsequently, the 1^st defendant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri and filed Annexure-A2 application under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Order came to be passed appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

SA No.678 of 2023

¶28

the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure-A3 notice dated 23.10.2023 to the applicant and the defendants 2 to 4 informing them that he would take physical possession of the secured asset on 16.11.2023. The applicant having aggrieved against the above measures filed this SA seeking the reliefs stated supra.

¶29

The applicant has not specifically raised any contention with regard to issuance of Annexure-A1 possession notice. He has also not averred anything in the SA as to whether the statutory requirement contemplated under Clause (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 was not complied with by the 1^st defendant bank in respect of filing of application and affidavit u/s. 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. There is also no averment in the SA in respect of the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Manjeri in CMP No.73/2022. Without challenging the aforesaid measures, challenging issuance of Annexure-A3 notice is not sustainable.

¶30

The applicant has failed to prove his case so as to get the relief sought for in the SA.

¶31

Resultantly, S.A No.678 of 2023 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7^th day of May, 2025.

(Su. WILLYAHM)

PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 3 of 5

SA No.678 of 2023

S C H E D U L E

Property having an extent of 13.85 cents in Re-Sy. No.134/2 Kalady Village, Ponnani Taluk, Thandilam Desom, Pothannoor amsom, Malappuram District which was obtained through the Purchase Certificate No.6962/1975 from Land Tribunal, Ponnani, which was registered in the name of Muhammed Siraj, Karumankuzhiyil as per Deed No.2839/2014 before SRO, Ponnani and all the appurtenant in the property.

¶40

Boundaries (as per Location Sketch)

¶41

East	: Property of Abdullakkutty Karumankuzhiyil
North	: Pathway having 3 Meter
West	: Property of Abdullakkutty Karumankuzhiyil and pathway
South	: Property of Ramla Chembilakath.

¶42

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

Page 4 of 5

¶44

SA No.678 of 2023

¶45

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

¶46

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	07.10.2021	True copy of Possession Notice issued by the1^st defendant bank	Annexure-A1
2.	---	True English translation of Annexure- A1 Possession Notice.	Annexure-A1a
3.	06.01.2022	True coy of the application in CMP No.73/2022 filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Manjeri by the1^st defendant.	Annexure-A2
4.	---	True copy of readable version of Annexure-A2 CMP No.73/2022 filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate CourtManjeriby the1^st defendant.	Annexure-A2a
5.	23.10.2023	True copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner.	Annexure-A3

¶47

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶48

Mj/

¶49

Page 5 of 5

Abdullakkutty v. Ponani Urban Co-operative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdullakkutty v. Ponani Urban Co-operative 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

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Yella Reddy

Punjab National Bank versus Dev Raj Gautam

Punjab National Bank versus Kushal Singh

Rajinder Singh versus State Bank of India

Smt Srilakhsmi versus india shelter finance corporation Ltd.

Manish Borida HUF versus State Bank of India