The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Kerala dismissed a Section 17 application challenging securitization proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that newspaper publication and minor affidavit defects did not cause substantial prejudice, rejecting the borrower's claim for intervention.
Securitization application dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the applicant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2025
SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.702/2024
Between
Anvar A., S/o.Asraf, Aged 42 years, Padinjare Anjilikkal, Chavady, Thirumalabhagom P.O., Cherthala, Alleppey District, Kerala State, PIN 688 540 …Applicant
And
This Securitization Application having been heard on 12.03.2025
in the presence of Advocate M/s. Shiv Shankar and S.Sreekala for the applicant and Advocate M/s. K.P.Sujesh Kumar and Keerthi K.Narayanan for the defendants, and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:
F I N A L O R D E R
Challenging the securitization proceeding initiated by the defendants 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’), the
2
SA No. 702/2024
applicant/borrower has filed this SA under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act.
Brief facts of the case :
3
SA No. 702/2024
take physical possession of the secured asset, which is impugned in this case. In this SA the applicant challenged the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner with a prayer to set aside the same.
the following points are emerged for adjudication in this case:
FINDINGS:
Point Nos.(i) & (ii):
4
SA No. 702/2024
objection is filed by the applicant in denying the demand. In this case also no dispute is raised by the applicant in respect of the demand advanced by the defendant.
5
SA No. 702/2024
illegal as the same are not leading newspapers having sufficient circulation in the locality. Further it is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the affidavit filed by the authorized officer in the application udder Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is not in accordance with the statutory requirements. Hence the securitization proceeding is vitiated. No material is placed by the applicant to establish his case that the Deepika in Malayalam language and The New Indian Express in English language are not leading newspapers in the locality. Mere claiming the same, the securitization proceeding cannot be held as illegal. Possession notice is published for the purpose of giving intimation to the general public as a whole that the subject matter property is involved in the securitization proceeding, possession is already taken and nobody shall deal with this property without the knowledge of the secured creditor. In such situation, the publication made in the above 2 newspapers did not cause any substantial prejudice to the applicant to interdict with the securitization proceeding. No material defect is also noticed in the Section 14 application and the declaration made by the authorized officer. It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that no date is put by the authorized officer in the affidavit accompanying the application under section 14 application. Hence the affidavit is not in order which renders the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act as illegal. On perusal of the declaration filed by the authorized officer it is seen that in paragraph 6, the authorized officer has stated that as on 04.09.2024 an amount of Rs.16,07,690.39 is due. The Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the order on 07.09.2024. In such premises nonmention of the date below the affidavit did not render the order as illegal.
6
SA No. 702/2024
follows:-
“19. In the facts and circumstances, when the action has been taken by the competent authority as per the procedure prescribed by law and the person affected has a knowledge leaving no ambiguity or confusion in initiating proceedings under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act by the secured creditor, in our considered view, such action taken thereof cannot be held to be bad in law merely on raising a trivial objection which has no legs to stand unless the person is able to show any substantial prejudice being caused on account of the procedural lapse as prescribed under the Act or the rules framed thereunder still with a caveat that it always depends upon the facts of each case to decipher the nature of the procedural lapse being complained of and the resultant prejudiced if any, being caused and there cannot be a straitjacket formula which can be uniformly followed in all the transactions.”
In view of this ratio, if the person concerned is not able to show any substantial prejudice being caused on account of procedural lapse as prescribed under the SARFAESI Act and the Rules framed thereunder, securitization proceedings cannot be set aside on mere technicality or trivial ground. Even if there is any error or omission in the affidavit filed by the Authorized officer, in absence of establishing of substantial prejudice to the applicant, the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot be said illegal.
7
SA No. 702/2024
relevant document. Hence the applicant is not entitled to get any relief in this case. Both the points are found against the applicant.
Hence it is ordered:-
ORDER
(Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 14th day of March, 2025)
[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER
SA 702/2024
8
Documents on the part of the applicant
| Annexures |
Date | Particulars of documents |
|---|---|---|
| Annexure-A1 | 05.07.2023 | Copy of demand notice under Section 13(2) |
| Annexure-A2 | ………………. | Copy of Section 14 Application dated nil in M.C. No.525 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. |
| Annexure-A3 | Copy of the affidavit dated nil in M.C. No.525 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. |
|
| Annexure-A4 | 07.09.2024 | Copy of Order in M.C. No.525 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. |
| Annexure-A5 | 20.09.2024 | Copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner . |
Documents on the part of the defendants
Annexure-B1 ………………. Copy of the registration particulars of the secured asset with the Central Registry.
PRESIDING OFFICER
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER
Dated the 14th day of March, 2025
SA No.702/2024
Between
Anvar A., S/o.Asraf, Aged 42 years, Padinjare Anjilikkal, Chavady, Thirumalabhagom P.O., Cherthala, Alleppey District, Kerala State, PIN 688 540 …Applicant
And The Federal Bank Ltd., Thuravoor Branch, Loan Collection and Recovery Division, Mavelikara & Another. …Defendants
F I N A L O R D E R
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the securitization proceedings initiated under Section 13(4) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act suffer from illegality or irregularity warranting intervention?
Whether the applicant is entitled to any relief given alleged defects in newspaper publication and affidavit particulars?
Whether procedural lapses like newspaper circulation and missing dates in affidavit caused substantial prejudice to the applicant?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
L & T Housing Finance Ltd. v. M/s.Trishul Developers & anotherApplied¶42
2020 KHC 6610
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Anvar A.
The Federal Bank Ltd.
Sovan Kumar Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Sovan Kumar Dash
Parties & counsel
