Dismissed

Parthas Textiles v. Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited

DRT25 Nov 2025SA/75/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application challenging SARFAESI enforcement. It held the assignee had locus standi based on admitted payment of consideration. The applicant was barred from claiming MSME benefits due to lack of timely notice, and Section 14 measures were valid without prior possession notice under Section 13(4).

What did the court decide?

The Applicant was not entitled to the reliefs sought; the Securitization Application stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

Parthas Textiles versus Asset Reconstruction Company India… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 25^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 75 of 2024

¶6

Between

¶7

M/s. Parthas Textiles, A Partnership Firm having its Office at PB No.1774, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 016, Rep. by its Managing Partner K.L. Rajendran Reddiar.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., (ARCIL), The Ruby, 10^th Floor, 29,

¶11

Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai – 400 028 (acting in its capacity as Trustee of the Arcil-SBP-008-III-Trust), Represented herein by its Senior – Chief Manager.

¶12

The Authorized Officer,

¶13

South Indian Bank Regional Office, Ernakulam.

¶14

--- Defendants

¶15

This Securitization Application coming on 21.08.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Jayesh B. Dolia, Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. Sunil Shankar, 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:

¶16

SA No.75 of 2024

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Securitisation Application was filed on 25.01.2024 seeking to set aside the entire SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the Defendants ending up with the issuance of auction sale notice dated 22.12.2023 and to direct the 1^st defendant to re-deliver the physical possession of the properties to the applicant and to pay damages to the applicant for their illegal acts and to pay the costs of the application to the applicant.

¶19

The applicant availed various credit facilities from the 2^nd defendant bank upon hypothecation of entire current assets of the first applicant firm including stocks of raw materials, packing materials etc. The credit facilities has been collaterally secured upon creation of equitable mortgage over the three items of immovable properties as referred to in Annexure A1 demand notice dated 01.06.2021.

¶20

Though the applicant has admitted in the SA that there were some defaults in repayment of the loan dues, it is averred in the SA that loan accounts were classified as NPA on 12.1.2021 without following the RBI guidelines. The applicant has not specifically pointed out in the SA as to how the classification of its loan accounts as NPA is against RBI guidelines. In Annexure A1 demand notice, it is clearly stated that since the borrowers committed defaults in repayment of the financial assistance, loan accounts were classified as NPA. Hence, it is evident that due to the default in repayment of the outstanding loan due, the loan account of the applicant came to be classified as NPA.

¶21

The applicant has admitted the receipt of Annexure A1 demand notice dated 1.6.2021. It is revealed from the perusal of the written statement of the 1^st defendant and the written statement of the 2^nd defendant that the applicant sent objection dated 9.8.2021 to the 2^nd defendant and that the 2^nd defendant sent reply letter dated 16.8.2021 for the above objection.

¶22

It is not in dispute that the 2^nd defendant vide Assignment Agreement dated 28.09.2021, assigned the debts of the applicant in favour of the 1^st defendant Asset Reconstruction Company. The applicant Firm itself has produced the copy of the above Assignment Agreement as Annexure A2.

¶23

The 1^st defendant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and filed Annexure A3 application and affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It appears that matter was made over to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam for disposal. Order came to be passed in M.C.

¶24

Page 2 of 16

¶25

SA No.75 of 2024

¶26

No.604/2022 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure A4 notice dated 16.09.2022 to the applicant informing that he would take physical possession of the property, if possession of the same is not handed over to him on or before 29.09.2022.

¶27

Pursuant to the order passed in M.C. No.604/2022, the Advocate Commissioner took physical possession of item No.1 and 2 of the properties. Subsequently, the 1^st defendant issued possession notice in respect of item No.1 of the properties and the possession notice in respect of item No.2 of the properties. Annexures B4 to B7 produced by the 1^st defendant evidences the publication of the aforesaid possession notices in two leading newspapers and affixture of the possession notices on the aforesaid secured assets.

¶28

Thereafter, the 1^st defendant issued Annexure A9 notice to the applicant calling upon it to redeem the secured assets. The applicant Firm itself has produced the above notice as Annexure A9. Subsequently, Annexure B1 sale notice dated 22.12.2023 for sale of the secured assets. The applicant has produced the copy of the sale notice as Annexure A10. The 1^st defendant has also produced copies of acknowledgment cards and returned postal covers for issuance of the sale notice Annexure B1(a). The 1^st defendant has also produced Annexure B1(b) copies of paper publication and Annexure B1(c) copies of photographs in order to prove its contention that Annexure B1 sale notice was published in the ‘New Indian Express’ edition dated 23.12.2023 and ‘Mangalam’ edition dated 23.12.2023 and that sale notice was affixed on the conspicuous parts of the secured assets. Indisputably, the sale of the secured assets which had been scheduled to be held on 17.03.2024 was not fructified due to want of bidders.

¶29

The applicant having aggrieved against the aforesaid measures, has filed this SA seeking for the reliefs sought for supra.

¶30

The counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that Annexure A2 assignment agreement was registered in SRO, Andheri, Mumbai and that no other properties covered under Ext.A2 falls under the jurisdiction of SRO, Andheri, Mumbai and that Ext.A2 is only an agreement and not the concluded deed and that total purchase consideration of Rs.343 Crores was not paid and that the 2^nd defendant has not filed any proof to show that purchase consideration was received from the 1^st defendant and that the averment of the 2^nd defendant in the written statement with regard to the receipt of the purchase consideration is not supported by any document and that hence, Annexure A2 is not legally sustainable. In support of his above submission, he cited the judgment of the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai delivered in Kothari Industrial Corporation Vs. Kottak Mahindra Bank Ltd., and Another (II(2007) BC 26).

¶31

Page 3 of 16

¶32

SA No.75 of 2024

¶33

It is submitted further by the counsel for the applicant that Annexure A2 assignment Agreement was not filed along with the petition in M.C. No.604/2022 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and that hence, the defendants had no locus standi to file the petition under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and that therefore, order passed in M.C. No.604/2022 is not legally sustainable.

¶34

The further contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the 2^nd defendant without considering the restructuring viability as per the MSME and RBI Circular classified the loan account of the applicant as Non-Performing Asset and that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in M/s.Pro Kints Vs. The Board of Directors of Canara Bank that Instructions/Directions issued by the Central Government under Section 9 of the MSMED Act and by the RBI under Section 21 and Section 35 (a) have statutory force and are binding called the Banking Companies. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras has held in A.K.Karthikeyan Vs. the Authorised Officer, Canara Bank and another (WP(MD) No.23328/2024) that the contention of the respondent bank that when the Section 13 (2) notice was issued, the petitioner did not bring it to the knowledge that the petitioner is MSME and entitled to the benefits of notification dated 25.09.2015, cannot be accepted since at the time of processing the loan document itself, it would have declared the unit comes under MSMED.

¶35

It is submitted further by the counsel for the applicant that the 1^st defendant invoked the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act without issuing possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others ((2010) 8 SCC 10 ) and Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others [(2011) 2 SCC 782] that measures under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act has to follow after Section 13(4) proceedings. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Noble Kumar and Others [(2013) 9 SCC 620] that Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act can be invoked even without initiating proceedings under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. But the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in C.S.Roshan Narayanan Vs. The Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India and Another [2017) AIR (KER) 192] , after analysing all the above judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph (13) that Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Noble Kumar’ case is “ per incurium ”, since the said decision does not refer to the earlier decisions of concurrent Benches delivered in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others [(2010) 8 SCC 10] and Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others [2011) 2 SCC 782].

¶36

Page 4 of 16

¶37

SA No.75 of 2024

¶38

It is submitted further by the counsel for the applicant that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Rajiv Subramanian Vs. Pandyas [2014 (2) CTC 323] that Rule 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules has to be followed by the banks in its strict sense and that the auction sale held in violation of the mandatory provisions is liable to be set aside. Since the 1^st defendant has not properly and legally stepped into the shoes of the 2^nd defendant, the 1^st defendant does not have any locus standi to proceed further under the SARFAESI Act 2002 on behalf of the 2^nd defendant and that hence the action initiated by the 1^st defendant is not legally valid and that only the 2^nd defendant has locus standi to proceed against applicant and that the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam in MC No.604/2022 is illegal and non est in the eye of law and that therefore, SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶39

The counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that the debt was assigned as per Assignment Agreement dated 28.9.2021, Annexure A2 to the 1^st defendant by the 2^nd defendant which is the original lender/Assignor, assigning all the rights, title and interest which the assignor is entitled to. The assignee shall have the right to enforce such security interest and exercise all the rights of the assignor in relation to such security interest.

¶40

It is submitted further by the counsel for the defendants that purchase consideration of Rs.343.27 Crores was paid by the 1^st defendant to the 2^nd defendant and that the factum of above payment is admitted by the parties to the Assignment Agreement. In the written statement filed by the 2^nd defendant, the receipt of purchase consideration is admitted. The contention of the applicant that purchase consideration was not paid stands nullified in view of the statement on record by both the parties to the assignment agreement that purchase consideration was paid and received.

¶41

It is submitted further by the counsel for the defendants that the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has held in Abdul Azezi Vs. The Authorised Officer, Phoenix Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.and others [2024) (2) KHC 157] as follows:- “it is therefore evident that what is transferred by a bank/financial institution to an Asset Reconstruction Company is only a transfer of economic right interest and there is no conveyance of property of proprietary right. The transfer of legal ownership of the loan is limited to the extent of economic interest transferred.

¶42

It is submitted further by the counsel for the defendants that the applicant has not claimed the benefit of MSME notification dated 29.5.2015 prior to classification of the loan account as NonPerforming Asset and that he has not claimed the same in the SA also

¶43

Page 5 of 16

¶44

SA No.75 of 2024

¶45

and that this issue has been raised by the applicant only at the time of oral argument of his counsel. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in M/s.Pro Kints Vs. The Board of Directors of Canara Bank and Shri Sree Swamy Syamaraj Construction and Finance Solution and another Vs. The Board of Directors of NKGSB Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others (2025) INSC 908, WP(Civil) No. 684/2025 dated 28.07.2025) that in the absence of claiming of MSME benefit in its Section 13(A) reply, the borrower cannot belatedly claim the benefit of MSME notification dated 25.9.2015. The above view has been followed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in * _M/s. SARK Spice Products Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Reserve Bank of India and others, 2025 KER 55399 (W.P (C) No.42050 of 2024 and connected matters dated 28.07.2025). P.K.Krishnakumar (2024 SCC OnLine (Ker 6888). M.D.Esthappan v. Reserve Bank of India (2025 SCC OnLine Ker 4193)._**

¶46

It is submitted further by the counsel for the defendants that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Noble Kumar and Others [(2013) 9 SCC 620] that Section 14 can be invoked even without initiating proceedings under Section 13(4). The submission of the applicant in the written argument note that the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has held that Noble Kumar’s case is per in curium is not correct. In fact, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has reconciled Noble Kumar’s case with earlier Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and held that physical dispossession is not necessary for the aggrieved party to challenge the Section 14 measures. There is no observation by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the above cited Judgment that Section 14 proceedings cannot be instituted without issuing possession notice. This SA has been filed to protract and delay the recovery process. Therefore, the SA is liable to be dismissed with costs.

¶47

Ext.A2 was executed on 28.09.2021 between the 1^st defendant Company and the 2^nd defendant which is the lender/assignor transferring the debt liability of the applicant to the 1^st defendant Company. What was transferred by way of Annexure A2 is economic right/interest by the 2^nd defendant to the 1^st defendant, as rightly submitted by the counsel for the defendants. It cannot be disputed that Annexure A2 is not a conveyance deed for transferring the right or title over the secured asset in favour of the 1^st defendant. The right to enforce the payment of the outstanding due by the borrower which is the applicant Firm stood transferred from the 2^nd defendant to the 1^st defendant by virtue of execution of Annexure A2 Assignment Agreement. In Abdul Azezi Vs. The Authorised Officer, Phoenix Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. and others [(2024) (2) KHC 157] relied on by the counsel for the defendants, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has categorically held as follows:-

¶48

Page 6 of 16

¶49

SA No.75 of 2024

¶50

“it is therefore evident that what is transferred by a bank/ financial institution to an Asset Reconstruction Company is only a transfer of economic right interest and there is no conveyance of property of proprietary right. The transfer of legal ownership of the loan is limited to the extent of economic interest transferred”.

¶51

Therefore, this Tribunal does not find any force in the submission of the counsel for the applicant that since Annexure A2 Assignment Agreement was registered in SRO, Andheri, Mumbai and no other properties covered under Annexure A2 falls under the jurisdiction of SRO, Andheri, Mumbai is invalid.

¶52

It is not the case of the applicant that there was a dispute between the 1^st defendant and the 2^nd defendant with regard to nonpayment of the purchase consideration. When both parties have categorically admitted that entire purchase consideration of Rs.343.27 was paid by the 1^st defendant to the 2^nd defendant, no documentary proof is required to be produced in this regard.

¶53

In Kothari Industrial Corporation Vs. Kottak Mahindra Bank Ltd., and Another (II(2007) BC 26) relied on by the counsel for the applicant, the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai has held in paragraph (6) of its Judgment held as follows:-

¶54

“When the deed is questioned, it is the duty of the respondent to establish that it is a valid document and it was done as per Section 5 of the SARFAESI Act. If the assignment is not valid, Kottak Mahindra Bank is not entitled to prosecute or act on behalf of the ICICI Bank Ltd.”

¶55

On perusal of Annexure A2 Assignment Agreement shows that it was executed between the 1^st defendant and 2^nd defendant for assignment of debt in favour of the 1^st defendant subject to various terms and conditions including the payment of entire sale consideration by the 1^st defendant to the 2^nd defendant and that it was registered in the SRO, Andheri, Mumbai. Hence, the submission of the counsel for the applicant is that Annexure A2 is not legally sustainable does not hold good.

¶56

All the rights of the 2^nd defendant with regard to initiation of measures under the SARFAESI Act under the Rules made thereunder to recover the outstanding loan due stood transferred to the 1^st defendant by virtue of execution of Annexure A2 Assignment Agreement. Hence, first defendant is deemed to be the secured creditor. In Annexure A3 application and affidavit filed in M.C. No.604/2022 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, the execution of Annexure A2 Assignment Agreement and

¶57

Page 7 of 16

¶58

SA No.75 of 2024

¶59

transfer and release all financial assistance in favour of the 1^st defendant is clearly averred. The mere omission to produce the copy of Annexure A2 Assignment Agreement along with the above petition will not render the petition invalid. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that the 1^st defendant has no locus standi to file petition and affidavit in M.C. No.604/2022 and that order passed in M.C. No.604/2022 is not legally sustainable is liable to be rejected.

¶60

There is no specific plea or averment in the SA with regard to availment of the benefit of MSME by the applicant by virtue of the notification dated 25.09.2015 by the Central Government under Section 9 of the MSMED Act. Though the applicant received Annexure A1 demand notice, he did not send any representation in this regard stating that he was entitled to the aforesaid benefit. The above plea has been raised only during advancement of argument by the counsel for the applicant. On the aforesaid ground alone, the plea raised by the applicant is unsustainable.

¶61

Be that as it may, the applicant has not produced any material before this Tribunal to show that the unit owned by the applicant is covered under the MSMED Act. It is also not the contention of the applicant that it informed the 2^nd defendant bank that its unit came under MSME. In A.K.Karthikeyan Vs. the Authorised Officer, Canara Bank and another (WP(MD) No.23328/2024 ) cited by the counsel for the applicant, the Hon’ble High Court has held that the contention of the respondent bank that when the Section 13 (2) notice was issued, the petitioner did not bring it to the knowledge that the petitioner is MSME and entitled to the benefits of notification dated 25.09.2015, cannot be accepted since at the time of processing the loan document itself, it would have declared the unit comes under MSMED. In the above case, the borrower is the proprietor of M/s.KKKM Engineering Industries, MSME Enterprises having UDYOG Adhar No.TN 22-0016206. At the time of availment of credit facility, the respondent Bank was aware of the factum that the above said industry fell under the category of MSME unit. Therefore, the above observation was made by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala that at the time of processing the loan document itself, the bank would have declared that unit came under MSME. Hence, the Tribunal considers that the above judgment relied on by the counsel for the applicant has not application to the present case at hand.

¶62

Both sides’ counsels have cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in M/s.Pro Kints Vs. The Board of Directors of Canara Bank. It has been held that Instructions/ Directions issued by the Central Government under Section 9 of the MSMED Act and by the RBI under Section 21 and Section 35 (a) have statutory force and are binding the Banking Companies. However, it has also been held in the above judgment as follows:-

¶63

Page 8 of 16

¶64

SA No.75 of 2024

¶65

“ Though while stressing that the terms of the frame work need to be followed by the lending banks/secured creditors before the account of an MSME is classified as NonPerforming Asset, this decision also lays stress on the obligation of the MSMEs by holding that ‘ it would be equally incumbent on the part of the MSMEs concerned to be vigilant enough to follow the process laid down under the said Framework, and bring to the notice of the Banks concerned, by producing the authenticated and verifiable documents/material to show its eligibility to get the benefit of the said Framework”. It was cautioned that “if such an Enterprise allowed the entire process for enforcement of security interest under the SARFAESI Act to be over, or it having challenged such action of the bank/creditor concerned in the court of law/tribunal and having failed, such an Enterprise could not be permitted to misuse the process of law for thwarting the actions taken under the SARFAESI Act by raising the plea of being an MSME at a belated stage”.

¶66

27 . The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in M/s. SARK Spice Products Pvt.Ltd. V/s. Reserve Bank of India and others, 2025 KER 55399 (W.P (C) No. 42050 of 2024 and connected matters dated 28.07.2025), after referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in M/s.Pro Kints Vs. The Board of Directors of Canara Bank, has held in paragraph 40 of its judgment that it is the obligation of the borrower to disclose its MSME status with authenticated and veritable documents before the loan account is classified as Non-Performing Asset and that failure to do so, this entitles the borrower from invoking the statutory frame work at a belated stage to obstruct the recovery under the SARFAESI Act.

¶67

In P.K.Krishnakumar ((2024) SCC OnLine (Ker 6888) relied on by the counsel for the defendants, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala by referring the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in M/s.Pro Kints Vs. The Board of Directors of Canara Bank , has held as follows:-

¶68

“ The Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, has laid down the position of law that if , at the stage of classification of the loan account, the borrower does not bring to the notice of the Bank that it is an MSME and allow the entire process to go through, then it will be precluded from raising it at the belated stage. This dicta is very clear and is binding”.

¶69

In the light of the dictum and observations laid in the afore cited judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court

¶70

Page 9 of 16

¶71

SA No.75 of 2024

¶72

of Kerala (cited by the counsel for the defendants), it is manifestly clear that the applicant is disentitled to claim the benefit of MSME unit after classification of his loan account as Non-Performing Asset.

¶73

The other contention raised by the applicant in the SA is that invoking the measures under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act without issuance of possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act is not legally sustainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Noble Kumar and Others ( (2013) 9 SCC 620 ) that Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act can be invoked even without initiating proceedings under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The counsel appearing for the applicant drew the attention of this Tribunal to the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in C.S.Roshan Narayanan Vs. The Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India and Another [(2017) AIR (KER) 192] , submitting that the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has held that the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Noble Kumar’s case is “ per in curium ”, since the above judgment does not refer to the earlier judgments of concurrent Benches delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others (2010) 8 SCC 10 ) and Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others [(2011) 2 SCC 782].

¶74

On perusal of the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala delivered in C.S.Roshan Narayanan Vs. The Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India and Another [(2017) AIR (KER) 192] , it is discernible that the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has not held that the judgment rendered in Noble Kumar’s case is per in curium. What has been observed in the above judgment is that physical dispossession is not necessary for the aggrieved party to challenge the measures initiated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. There is no observation in the above judgment that measures under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be initiated without issuance of the possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, this Tribunal does not find any merit in the contention of the applicant that the measures initiated by the 1^st defendant under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, without issuance of the possession notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is not valid.

¶75

Apart from the aforesaid contentions raised by the applicant, there are no other contentions or averments either in the SA or in the written argument notes submitted on behalf of the applicant with regard to non compliance of the statutory requirements contemplated under clauses (i) to (ix) to the proviso of Section 14 (1) of the SAFRAESI Act, 2002 in respect of filing of application and affidavit in MC No.604/2022 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. There is also no specific challenge with regard to the

¶76

Page 10 of 16

¶77

SA No.75 of 2024

¶78

order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam in MCNo.604/2022 appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. There is also no specific challenge or contention with regard to issuance of Annexure A10 sale notice dated 22.12.2023 and Annexure A11 sale notice dated 15.02.2024.

¶79

However, the 1^st defendant has produced Annexure B1(a) to Annexure B1(d), Annexure B2 to Annexure B6 and Annexure B6(a) to Annexure B6(c) in order to show that Annexure A10 sale notice dated 22.12.2023 and Annexure A11 sale notice dated 15.2.2024 were served to the applicant and that it was published in two leading newspapers and that it was affixed on the conspicuous parts of the secured assets and that reserve price for the secured asset was fixed in both the sale notices after obtaining valuation reports. This Tribunal does not find any illegality or irregularity in respect of the issuance of the sale notices. This Tribunal also does not find any infirmity or irregularity in respect of filing of Annexure A3 application and affidavit by the first defendant in MC No.604/2022.

¶80

In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Tribunal holds that the applicant is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the SA.

¶81

Resultantly, this SA No.75 of 2024 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶82

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25^th day of November, 2025.

¶83

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 11 of 16

SA No.75 of 2024

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES

¶88

PROPERTY - I

¶89

All that part and parcel of land admeasuring 7.96 Ares (19.669 cents) along with commercial building (Textile Showroom) with approximate area 27,753 sq.ft. in Cochin Corporation and all other improvements therein situated in Sy. No.735/5 and 737/12, Ernakulam village, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam District and covered under Sale Deed No.2597 of 1991 dated 29.07.1991, Gift Deed No.1170 of 1990 dated 28.03.1990, 1171 of 1990 dated 28.03.1990, and Sale Deed No.1406

¶90

of 1969 dated 14.07.1969, all of Ernakulam SRO, bounded as follows:

¶91

North : Property of Dena Bank South : Road East : M.G. Road West : Property of Sivakumar

¶92

PROPERTY - II

¶93

Stock as available in the above mentioned property No.1, i.e., Textile Showroom.

Page 12 of 16

SA No.75 of 2024

PROPERTY – III

All that part and parcel of land admeasuring 1.79 Ares (4.42 cents) along with building in Cochin Corporation and all other improvements therein situated in Sy. No.701/1, Ernakulam village, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam District and covered under Sale Deed No.2420 of 2008 Ernakulam SRO dated 02.06.2008, boundaries as per Sale Deed No.2420 of 2008, Ernakulam SRO as follows:

¶98

North	: Property in Survey No.701/1 Part,
South	: Property in Survey No.701/6,
East	: Property in Survey No.701/1 Part,
West	: Public Road.

¶99

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶100

Page 13 of 16

¶101

SA No.75 of 2024

¶102

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

¶103

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	01.06.2021	Copy of demand notice	Annexure-A1
2.	28.09.2021	Copy of the assignment agreement entered into between ARCIL and South Indian Bank.	Annexure-A2
3.	06.05.2022	Copy of MC No.604 of 2022 filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam bythe 1^stdefendant.	Annexure-A3
4.	16.09.2022	Copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam in MC No.604of2022.	Annexure-A4
5.	07.07.2023	Copy of the order in IA Nos.1311/2023 and 2010/2023 in SA No.519/2022 passed by thisTribunal.	Annexure-A5
6.	13.09.2023	Copy of the possession notice affixed on thewalls ofthe schedule property1& 2	Annexure-A6
7.	27.10.2023 22.01.2024	Copies of the interim orders in OP (DRT) No.370/2023 by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.	Annexure-A7
8.	06.10.2023	Copy of extract of the court proceedings of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court(MPs/MLAs),Ernakulam	Annexure-A8
9.	18.10.2023	Copy of the intimation to sale notice	Annexure-A9
10.	22.12.2023	Copy of the auction sale notice	Annexure-A10
11.	15.02.2024	Copy of the notice of sale issued by 1^st defendant	Annexure-A11
12.	21.06.2024	Copy of sale notice/sale intimation	Annexure-A12

¶104

Page 14 of 16

¶105

SA No.75 of 2024

¶106

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

¶107

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	22.12.2023	True copy of sale notice.	Annexure-B1
2.	---	True copies of acknowledgment cards returned postal covers	Annexure- B1(a)
3.	23.12.2023	True copies of the paper publications in the New Indian Express edition and in Mangalam edition	Annexure- B1(b)
4.	---	True copy of the photographs affixed on the secured assets.	Annexure- B1(c)
5.	01.11.2023 26.11.2023	True copies of the Valuation Reports.	Annexure- B1(d)
6.	15.09.2023	True copies of paper publications in respect of item No.1property.	Annexure-B2
7.	---	True copy of the photographs evidencing affixture of item No.01 property.	Annexure-B3
8.	16.09.2023	True copy of paper publication of item No.2 property.	Annexure-B4
9.	---	True copy of the photographs evidencing affixture of item No.02 property.	Annexure-B5
10.	15.02.2024	True copy of the postal receipts of the sale notice.	Annexure-B6
11.	19.02.2024	True copies of the paper publications in the Indian Express edition and in Mangalam edition.	Annexure- B6(a)
12.	---	True copy of the photographs evidencing affixtureinsecured assets.	Annexure- B6(b)
13.	01.11.2023 15.11.2023	True copies of the valuation reports.	Annexure- B6(c)
14.	13.09.2023	True copy of the Commission Report.	Annexure-B7

¶108

Page 15 of 16

¶109

SA No.75 of 2024

¶110

List of documents filed by the defendants along with Memo ID No.4286/2024

¶111

Sl.	Date	Particulars
No.
1.	15.02.2024	True copy of the sale notice	Document No.1
2.	---	True copy of postal receipts of the same	Document No.2
3.	---	True copy of paper publication in respect of sale notice dated 15.02.2024.	Document No.3
4.	---	True copy of photograph of affixture	Document No.4

(Su. WILLYAHM)

PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 16 of 16

Parthas Textiles v. Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parthas Textiles v. Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited

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

Basil Co. versus Kerala Gramin Bank

Uco Bank versus Sh. Bachchan Kumar Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Bhagwant Singh

Indu Kumari Pandey versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S K. K. Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Mr. Praveen