Dismissed

Mohammed Shareef v. Manjeri Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.

DRT9 Jul 2025SA/711/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application filed by borrowers seeking to set aside an Advocate Commissioner's notice for taking possession of mortgaged property. The court found the borrowers failed to prove irregularities in the SARFAESI proceedings or lack of mortgage over the building, and noted regularization falls outside Section 13(4).

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application (S.A No.711 of 2023) stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

Mohammed Shareef versus Manjeri Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 9^th DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 711 of 2023

¶6

Between

¶7

Mohammed Shareef,

¶8

S/o. Adampulan Saidalavi, Adampulan House,

¶9

Musliyarangadi,

¶10

Nediyiruppu P.O.,

¶11

Malappuram – 673 638.

¶12

Subaida, W/o. Mohammed Shareef, Adampulan House, Musliyarangadi,

¶13

Nediyiruppu P.O.,

¶14

Malappuram – 673 638.

¶15

--- Applicants

¶16

And

¶17

The Manjeri Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Court Road, Manjeri P.O, Malappuram-676 121, Represented by its General Manager/ Authorized Officer.

¶18

The Authorized Officer,

¶19

Manjeri Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Court Road, Manjeri P.O, Malappuram-676 121.

¶20

--- Defendants

¶21

SA No.711 of 2023

¶22

This Securitization Application coming on 03.06.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ms. Jinsamol M.A., Counsel appearing for the Applicants and Mr. K. Vidyasagar, Counsel appearing for the defendants and upon hearing arguments of learned Counsels for both the parties and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This Securitisation Application was filed on 23.11.2023 seeking to set aside Annexure-A1 application and Annexure-A2 Advocate Commissioner notice and to declare that Annexure-A1 and A2 are not binding on the applicants and to direct the defendants to regularize the loan account of the applicants and to allow the cost of the proceedings from the defendants.

¶25

The availment of credit facility to a tune of Rs.6,00,000/- by the applicants from the 1^st defendant bank upon creation of Equitable mortgage over the property admeasuring an extent of 6.44 cents with residential building comprised in Re.Sy. No. 319/4 Block No.35 of Nediyiruppu village, Kondotty Taluk, Malappuram district, is admitted by the applicants.

¶26

The applicants have also admitted in the SA that due to nonpayment of the loan amount their loan account was declared as NonPerforming Asset. Demand notice dated 29.01.2019 Annexure-B1 was issued to the applicants calling upon them to repay the outstanding loan due within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice. The defendants have produced Annexure-B2 copies of postal receipts and acknowledgment cards in order to prove their contention that demand notice was served to the applicants. Indisputably, the applicants neither sent any objection/representation to the demand notice nor did they clear off their liability due to the 1^st defendant bank.

¶27

Hence, Annexure-B3 possession notice dated 20.05.2019 was issued for symbolically taking physical possession of the secured asset. The defendants have produced Annexure-B4 and B5, copies of postal receipts and postal acknowledgment cards in order to show that the possession notice was served to the applicants. Annexure-B6 to B8 produced by the defendants evidences the affixture of the possession notice on the conspicuous part of the secured asset and publication of the possession notice in Kerala Kaumudi edition dated 25.05.2019 and in Chandrika edition dated 25.05.2019.

¶28

Page 2 of 8

¶29

SA No.711 of 2023

¶30

Thereafter, defendants approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Manjeri and filed Annexure-A1 application and Annexure-B9 affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Order came to be passed appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued notice dated 20.11.2023 Annexure-A2 to the applicants informing them that he would take physical possession of the secured asset on 24.11.2023. The applicants having aggrieved against the above measures have filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

¶31

The applicants have not raised any contention or challenge with regard to issuance of demand notice, possession notice and order passed in MC No.141/2020 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The applicants have averred in the SA that the defendants did not file any affidavit before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri along with Annexure-A1 application. The defendants have produced copy of the affidavit which was filed in MC No.141/2020 as Annexure-B9. Therefore, the above contention of the applicants is absolutely incorrect.

¶32

The applicants have also not pointed out any irregularity in respect of non-compliance of the statutory requirements contemplated under Clause (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 and of filing of the Annexure-B9 affidavit in MC No.141/2020. The main contention raised by the applicants in the SA is that the interest calculated by the defendants is not as per the terms of the agreement made between the parties and that repayment made by the applicants was not properly credited and that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act 2002 are not applicable to the proceedings against the property covered in Annexure-A1 and that residential building was not mortgaged with the 1^st defendant bank.

¶33

No material has been produced by the applicants to prove their contention that interest calculated is not in terms of the loan agreement and that the repayments made by them was not given credit. In Annexure-B1 demand notice it is clearly stated that the applicants have mortgaged their properties described in schedule ‘A’ for availment of the credit facility. In the description to schedule ‘A’ the existence of the building in the land is clearly mentioned. The applicants though received the demand notice, did not send any objection to the 1^st defendant bank stating that building has not been mortgaged. Therefore, the contention of the applicants that residential building was not mortgaged is absolutely incorrect. Once it is established that security interest has been created over the land and building, the secured creditor shall be at liberty to proceed against the whole secured assets.

¶34

Page 3 of 8

¶35

SA No.711 of 2023

¶36

The applicants have also not produced any material before this Tribunal to prove their contention that there is a disparity between the actual amount due and the amount claimed by the defendants.

¶37

One of the reliefs sought for by the applicants in the SA is to permit them to regularize their loan account. The above relief does not fall under any of the categories referred to in Sec.13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. It is for the applicants to work out their above remedy with the 1^st defendant bank.

¶38

The applicants have failed to prove their case so as to get the reliefs sought for in the SA. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that the applicants are not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in this SA.

¶39

Resultantly, S.A No.711 of 2023 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9^th day of July, 2025.

¶41

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 4 of 8

SA No.711 of 2023

S C H E D U L E

The property having an extent of 6.44 cents of property and residential building in Re.Sy. No.319/4 (old Sy. No.346/4) Block No.35 of Nediyiruppu village, Kondotty Taluk, Nediyiruppu amsom, Nediyiruppu desom, Malappuram District which was registered as Deed No.6104/2011 registered before Kondotty Sub Registry Office.

¶47

Description of property (No.1 property as per Deed No.6104/2011 registered before Kondotty SRO

¶48

2.40 cents of property with all appurtenant in it lying in the southwest portion of Poonchola Parambu measured in Meters, 7.0 on the northern side, 7.0 on the eastern side, 14.3 on the southern side and 13.80 on the western side.

¶49

Boundaries of No.1 property as per Deed 6104/2011 registered at Kondotty Sub Registry Office

¶50

East : Pathway having 3 meter width North : Panchayath pathway South : My share of property described as item No.1 West : Item No.2 property

¶51

Description of property (No.2 property as per Deed No.6104/2011 registered before Kondotty SRO

¶52

Portion lying at the immediate west side of the above mentioned property with measurements on East, West, North side 13.70, South side 13.20, South North 6.30, West side 17.90 (Share 4.050 cents) Total extent as said above.

¶53

Page 5 of 8

¶54

SA No.711 of 2023

¶55

Boundaries of No.1 property as per Deed 6104/2011 registered at Kondotty Sub Registry Office

¶56

East : Item No.1 property North : Panchayath road South : Property in the hands of Saidalavi West : Property giving to Parakkadan Baiju and 3 others

¶57

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶58

Page 6 of 8

¶59

SA No.711 of 2023

¶60

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

¶61

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	---	True copy of the petition in MC No.141/2020 filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Manjeri.	Annexure-A1
2.	---	Typed copy along with translation of Annexure-A1.	Annexure-A1a
3.	20.11.2023	True copy of the Advocate Commissioner notice.	Annexure-A2

¶62

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

¶63

Sl.	Date	Particulars
No.
1.	29.01.2019	True copy of the Demand Notice issued by the defendant to the applicants alongwith itsEnglishtranslation	Annexure-B1
2.	30.01.2019	True copy of the postal receipt and acknowledgment cards along with its Englishtranslation.	Annexure-B2
3.	20.05.2019	True copy of the Possession Notice issued by the defendant to the applicants along with English translation	Annexure-B3
4.	28.05.2019	True copy of the postal receipt and acknowledgment card received by the 1^stapplicant along with its English translation.	Annexure-B4
5.	28.05.2019	True copy of the postal receipt and acknowledgment card received by the 2^ndapplicant along with its English translation.	Annexure-B5
6.	---	True copy of the photograph showing affixture of Possession Notice	Annexure-B6
7.	25.05.2019	True copy of the newspaper publication of Possession Notice in Kerala Kaumudi daily alongwith Englishtranslation	Annexure-B7

¶64

Page 7 of 8

¶65

SA No.711 of 2023

¶66

8.	25.05.2019	True copy of the newspaper publication of Possession Notice in Chandrika daily alongwith Englishtranslation	Annexure-B8
9.	---	True copy of the affidavit filed by the defendant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Manjeri.	Annexure-B9
10.	08.08.2023	True copy of the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 25050/2023 on the file of the Hon'bleHighCourt of Kerala.	Annexure-B10
11.	---	True copy of the writ petition, W.P. (C) No.36202/2023 filed by the 1^st applicant before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.	Annexure-B11

¶67

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶68

Mj/

¶69

Page 8 of 8

Mohammed Shareef v. Manjeri Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Shareef v. Manjeri Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.

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

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Rohit Bajaj

State Bank of India versus Shri Vishnu Pandurang Sawake

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Sangeeta Trader

Canara Bank versus Sh. Surjeet Singh @Surjit Singh

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Kulwant Singh

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sukhdev Singh