Dismissed

Sarasu Joseph v. Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

DRT15 Sept 2025SA/719/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Securitization Application under the SARFAESI Act, holding that since no objection was raised to the demand notice under Section 13(3-A) and similar claims were pending in High Court writ proceedings, the application was devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed as being devoid of merit without costs.

Sarasu Joseph versus Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Dated this the 15^th day of September, 2025

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.719/2023

¶5

Between

¶6

Sarasu Joseph, Aged 66 years, W/o. Joseph, Manjappallil House, Velloor P.O., Kottayam District, PIN – 686 501. …Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

The Authorised Officer, Kerala Bank (Kerala State Co-operative Bank), Kottayam Regional Office, P.B. No.140, Central Junction, Kottayam District,

¶9

PIN – 686 001.

¶10

The Branch Manager, Kerala Bank (Kerala State Co-operative Bank), Manarcad Branch, Kalayil Building, Manarcad, Kottayam District, PIN – 686 019. …Defendants

¶11

This Securitization Application having been heard on 25.08.2025 in the presence of Advocate Shri. Sajeevan Kurukkuttiyullathil for the applicant and Adv. Smt. Sabitha C.A. for

¶12

¶13

SA 719/2023

¶14

the defendants and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶15

F I N A L O R D E R

¶16

Challenging the securitization proceedings 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 applicant/borrower has filed this SA under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act seeking relief to declare the entire securitization proceeding as illegal.

¶17

Brief facts of the case :

¶18

2.1 In this SA the applicant has challenged the securitization measure initiated by the defendants. It is the admitted case of the applicant that she availed two loans from the 2^nd defendant by mortgaging the subject matter property. Due to default in repayment, a demand notice was issued under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶19

2.2 It is further contended in the SA that the applicant approached the defendants for regularization of the loan. But they did not consider the same. It is further averred in the SA that the demand notice is not proper. As statement of account was not

¶20

¶21

SA 719/2023

¶22

furnished, they could not file the objection after receipt of the demand notice. The possession notice is also not in proper. So also the measure under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is not in accordance with the statutory requirement. In absence of compliance of the statutory requirement, the defendants cannot proceed with the securitization measure. Hence the SA may be allowed by setting aside the securitization measure.

¶23

The defendants did not file any written statement, but participated in hearing of the case.

¶24

Admittedly the applicant availed the loan and due to default the securitization proceeding was initiated. In the SA no specific allegation about any illegality in the securitization proceeding is raised. It is only contended that the notice issued by the defendants under Section 13(2) of the SARFGAESI Act is not in accordance with the statutory requirement as the account statement was not furnished. The demand notice was issued on 30.09.2022. After receipt of the same, the applicant did not file any objection or representation under Section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act stating any defect in the notice nor claimed to furnish the account statement. Rather they filed one WP(C) No.8616/2023 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, where the applicant was

¶25

¶26

SA 719/2023

¶27

given an opportunity to repay the amount due in loan in equal monthly instalments. But no step was taken in repaying the loan. Once the applicant has challenged the demand notice before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No.8616/2023, she cannot again re-agitate the same in this Forum in view of the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5542-5543 of 2023 in

¶28

the case of Celir LLP vs. Mr. Sumati Prasad Bafna & others , reported in 2024 SCC Online, where in it is held as follows:-

¶29

……………“128. Once, the Borrower had elected to move the High Court for the very same cause of action and underlying prayers, the moment the same was entertained by the High Court, which it did, the Borrower was precluded from pursuing its remedies before the DRT by way of S.A. No. 46 of 2024, and was duty bound to now espouse it only in the writ proceedings, as otherwise it would tantamount to having a second bite at the cherry and relitigating what it has already litigated.”

¶30

The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the judgment reported in 2022 (3) KLT 645 in the case of AGP City Gas Private Limited

¶31

v. M/s.Lynx Properties & Developers & others had held as

¶32

follows:

¶33

“22. In the instant case, admittedly no objection was raised by the borrower or guarantor on the quantum specified in the demand notice issued under section 13(2) of the Act. Therefore, the opportunity available to the borrower as well as the guarantor, to object to the quantum mentioned in the demand notice was not availed by them. Hence, they cannot thereafter, turn around and question the quantum mentioned in the demand notice to contend that the notice is bad in law. ……”

¶34

¶35

SA 719/2023

¶36

The applicant, having not raised any objection under section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act, now she cannot dispute the demand notice and the claim amount in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.

¶37

No other illegality is pointed out by the applicant to interdict with the securitization measure. Even the defendants have not filed any written statement in this case, the same cannot be a ground to allow the SA without proof of any illegality in the securitization measure.

¶38

Hence it is ordered:-

¶39

ORDER

¶40

In view of the foregoing reasons, this SA, being devoid

¶41

of any merit is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.

¶42

(Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 15^th day of September, 2025).

¶43

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶44

¶45

SA 719/2023

¶46

Documents on the part of the applicant

¶47

Annexures	Date	Particulars of docu	ments
Annexure-A1	30.09.2022	A true copy of the notice with respect to the Loa 050426043320027 along English Translation.	u/s. 13(2) n No.OD- with true
Annexure-A2	30.09.2022	A true copy of the notice with respect to the Lo 050426042220449 along English Translation.	u/s. 13(2) an No.OL- with true
Annexure-A3	14.03.2023	A true copy of the Ju WP(C) No.8616 of 2023.	dgment in
Annexure-A4	06.05.2023	A true copy of the letter the 2^nddefendant to the a	issued by pplicant.
Annexure-A5	06.12.2023	A true copy of the posses issued by the Commissioner.	sion notice Advocate
Annexure-A6	12.12.2023	A true copy of the MC No of the Chief Judicial Court, Kottayam.	.598/2023 Magistrate

¶48

Documents on the part of the defendants .. NIL

¶49

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶50

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶51

PRESENT: SRI. SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶52

Dated this the 15^th September, 2025

¶53

S.A. No.719/2023

¶54

Between

¶55

Sarasu Joseph, Aged 66 years, W/o. Joseph, Manjappallil House, Velloor P.O., Kottayam District, PIN – 686 501. …Applicant

¶56

And

¶57

The Authorised Officer, Kerala Bank (Kerala State Co-operative Bank), Kottayam Regional Office, P.B. No.140, Central Junction, Kottayam District, PIN – 686 001 & Another.

¶58

…Defendants

¶59

F I N A L O R D E R

Sarasu Joseph v. Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarasu Joseph v. Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank versus Maldebhai

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Rajaram S/O. Brijlal

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/s. Vishakha Construction

Uco Bank versus MD Sahabaj Prop of Ms Sahabaj Timber and Anr.

Hdfc Bank versus Avtar Singh

Mrs Pinki Mandal and Anr. versus Icici Bank Limited