Dismissed

Abbas Ca v. Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

DRT18 Sept 2025SA/784/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application seeking to set aside notices for possession and sale of mortgaged property. The Tribunal found the bank complied with SARFAESI Act provisions and the applicant failed to substantiate claims regarding property valuation.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application No. 784 of 2023 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

Abbas Ca versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd. — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 18^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 784 of 2023

¶6

Between

¶7

Abbas C.A. S/o. Alikunju C.E., Cherodath House, Kuttamassery, Thottumugham P.O., Aluva, Ernakulam 683105.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

Alwaye Urban Co-op Bank Ltd. No.1623, having Head Office Market Road, Aluva 683 101 Rep by its General Manager.

¶11

The Authorized Officer, Alwaye Urban Co-op Bank Ltd. No.1623, having Head Office Market Road, Aluva 683 101.

¶12

--- Defendants

¶13

This Securitization Application coming on 30.06.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Kuruvilla Mathew, Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Ms. Leela R., 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:

¶14

SA No.784 of 2023

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Securitisation Application was filed on 21.12.2023 seeking to set aside Annexure-A1 and A2 demand notices, Annexure-A3 Possession Notice and Annexure-A4 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner and to direct the defendants not to proceed further in relation to the properties mentioned in Annexure-A1 to A3 notices and not to dispossess the applicant and to declare that Annexure-A5 sale notice is illegal, and to set aside Annexure-A5 sale notice and allow the applicant to recover the full costs of this application from the defendants.

¶17

The applicant has admitted the availment of credit facility from the 1^st defendant bank by him and his brother Hamza upon creation of equitable mortgage over his father’s immovable property admeasuring an extent of 14.80 Ares comprised in Sy. No.203/1 of Keezhmadu village. He has also admitted in the SA that due to several reasons, the loan could not be repaid.

¶18

Hence, the loan account of the applicant and his brother was came to be classified as Non-Performing Asset and demand notices dated 21.03.2022 Annexure-A1 and A2 was issued calling upon them to pay the outstanding loan due within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice.

¶19

The applicant has averred in paragraph 2 of the SA as follows:

¶20

“Bank issued notices u/s 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. The applicant is producing herewith notice dated 21.03.2022 issued to the applicant in relation to the loan in which he is the principal borrower and the same is marked as Annexure-A1. The applicant is also producing herewith true Photostat copy of the demand notice issued in relation to the loan in which he is the guarantor and the same is marked as Annexure-A2. On receiving the notice, the applicant approached the Bank.”

¶21

The applicant having admitted the receipt of the aforesaid demand notices filed petition in IA No.1990/2025 praying to direct the respondents/defendants to produce the original postal receipts showing registration and sending of the demand notice individually to the borrowers and the corresponding acknowledgment cards received from them. This Tribunal having heard both sides’ counsels, dismissed the petition with observation that the conduct of the applicant in filing this petition shows that his sole intention is to protract the proceedings of the case.

¶22

Page 2 of 8

¶23

SA No.784 of 2023

¶24

The applicant and other borrower and guarantors did not send any objection/representation to the demand notices. The averment of the applicant in the SA that when he approached the Bank after receipt of the demand notices he was informed that issuance of notice was a formality and no further proceedings will be initiated, is stoutly refuted by the defendants in their written statement.

¶25

Since the applicant, co-borrowers and guarantors failed to respond to the terms of the demand notices, Annexure-A3 possession notice dated 07.07.2022 was issued for symbolically taking physical possession of the secured asset. Issuance of the possession notice is admitted by the applicant.

¶26

Thereafter, the defendants approached the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, (MPs/MLAs) Ernakulam and filed Annexure A6 application and Annexure A7 affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Annexure A8 Order dated 24.11.2023 came to be passed in MC No.204/2023 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure A4 notice dated 6.12.2023 to the applicant and other guarantors informing them that he would take physical possession of the secured asset on 20.12.2023. Subsequently, Annexure A5 sale notice dated 06.01.2024 was issued for the sale of the secured asset. According to the defendants, sale could not be conducted as there as status quo order has been passed by this Tribunal. The applicant having aggrieved against the above measures filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

¶27

The counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant after receipt of the demand notice approached the 1^st defendant bank and that since he was informed that notice was issued as a formality and that no further proceedings will not be initiated, the applicant did not send any objection/representation to the demand notice. Since issuance of Annexure A4 notice is a measure, it has to be challenged and the rate of interest is not mentioned in the demand notices. The details furnished in Annexure A6 application and Annexure A7 affidavit are incomplete. The reserve price of Rs.2,47,00,000/- fixed in Annexure-A5 sale notice is very low, when the market value of the property is more than Rs.6 Crores. Therefore, the SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶28

The counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that since the applicant defaulted the repayment of the outstanding loan due, the loan account of the applicant was classified as Non-Performing Asset as per the guidelines issued by the RBI and that the 1^st defendant bank never made any pressure tactics for adjustment of the loan adjustment as contended by the applicant. No objection/

¶29

Page 3 of 8

¶30

SA No.784 of 2023

¶31

representation was sent for the demand notice. The applicant never approached the 1^st defendant bank and the 1^st defendant bank never told him that issuance of demand notice and possession notice is only a formality. Annexure-A5 sale notice was issued fixing the reserve price after obtaining valuation report from the approved Valuer. All the statutory requirements contemplated u/s 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 were complied with. Therefore, SA may be dismissed with cost to the defendants.

¶32

A perusal of Annexure-A6 application and A7 affidavit shows that all the statutory requirements contemplated under Clauses (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 were complied with. Hence the submission of the counsel for the applicant that Annexure-A6 application and A7 affidavit are incomplete does not hold good.

¶33

A perusal of Annexure-A8 order shows that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam after having perused the contents of the affidavit and the documents produced along with the affidavit and after having satisfied over the same, passed order appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. This Tribunal does not find any infirmity or illegality in the above order.

¶34

The provisions of Sec.13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 does not mandate the mentioning of rate of interest in the demand notice. Hence this Tribunal does not find any merit in the submission of the counsel for the applicant that rate of interest is not mentioned in the demand notice.

¶35

The defendants issued Annexure-A5 sale notice dated 06.01.2024 in order to sell the secured asset in the auction. According to the defendants, sale could not be conducted since a status quo order has been passed by this Tribunal. The reserve price fixed in Annexure-A5 sale notice is Rs.2,47,00,000/-. It is the contention of the applicant that the market value of the property is more than Rs.6 Crores and that the reserve price fixed in the sale notice is very low. The applicant has not produced any material before this Tribunal to substantiate his claim that market value of the property is more than Rs.6 Crores. Apart from the aforesaid contention, the applicant has not raised any other contention in the SA with regard to issuance of Annexure-A5 sale notice. The defendants has produced Annexure-B5 security interest ID Based search report. A perusal of the same shows that the security interest over the secured asset was registered on 21.03.2022 with the Central Registry.

¶36

Page 4 of 8

¶37

SA No.784 of 2023

¶38

The applicant has failed to prove his case so as to get the reliefs sought for in the SA. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that the applicant is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in this SA.

¶39

Resultantly, S.A No.784 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 18^th day of September, 2025.

¶41

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 5 of 8

SA No.784 of 2023

S C H E D U L E

District : Ernakulam Sub District : Aluva Taluk : Aluva Village : Keezhmad Old Sy. No. : 182/2A 181/3A Re Sy. No. : 203/1 Block : 32 Extent : 14 Ares 80 sq meter (36.57 cents)

¶47

Description

¶48

All that part and parcel of the land admeasuring an extent of 14.80 Ares of property comprised in old Sy. No.182/2A, 181/3A, Re Sy. No.203/1 Block No.32, situated in Keezhmad village, Aluva Taluk, Aluva SRO, Ernakulam District bounded by the following with all easement and other rights and all trees and improvements including building if any existing thereon, by Deed No.3498 dated 03.12.1962.

¶49

Boundaries

¶50

On the East by : Way On the South by : Road On the West by : Property of Abdul Kareem On the North by : Property of Alikunju

¶51

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶52

Page 6 of 8

¶53

SA No.784 of 2023

¶54

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

¶55

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	21.03.2022	True copy of the Demand Notice issued by the defendantswithtranslation.	Annexure-A1
2.	21.03.2022	True copy of the Demand Notice issued by the defendantswithtranslation.	Annexure-A2
3.	07.07.2022	True copy of the Possession Notice issued by the defendant with translation	Annexure-A3
4.	06.12.2023	True copy of the notice issued by Advocate Commissioner in MC No.204 of 2023 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs) Ernakulam	Annexure-A4
5.	06.01.2024	True copy of the sale notice	Annexure-A5
6.	---	Certified copy of the application in MC No.204/2023.	Annexure-A6
7.	---	Certified copy of the affidavit in MC No.204/2023.	Annexure-A7
8.	24.11.2023	Certified copy of the order in MC No.204/2023.	Annexure-A8
9.	02.01.2024	True copy of the pay in slip regarding payment of Rs.10Lakhs	Annexure-A9
10.	02.01.2024	True copy of the receipt issued by the defendant bank	Annexure-A10

¶56

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

¶57

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	---	True copy of the statement of SB A/c No.030201010008521 from 08.03.2021 to 24.01.2025 in the name of depositors ShailaK.KandAlikunju C.E.	Annexure-B1
2.	---	True copy of the statement of SB A/c No.030201010008092 from 08.03.2021 to 24.01.2025 in the name of depositor HamsaC.A.	Annexure-B2

¶58

Page 7 of 8

¶59

SA No.784 of 2023

¶60

3.	---	True copy of the statement of SB A/c No.030201010008091 from 08.03.2021 to 24.01.2025 in the name of depositor Abbas C.A.	Annexure-B3
4.	---	True copy of the statement of SB A/c No.0302010008404 from 08.03.2021 to 24.01.2025 in the name of depositor RameesaT.A.	Annexure-B4
5.	22.11.2022	True copy of the CERSAI certificate	Annexure-B5

¶61

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶62

Mj/

¶63

Page 8 of 8

Abbas Ca v. Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abbas Ca v. Urban Co. operative Bnak 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

Mohammed Ashraf C a versus Indian Overseas Bank

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Akrosh Abdul Khan

Ms Siddhi Vinayak Steel and others versus Punjab National Bank

Central Bank of India versus M/S Khushboo Vastraalay

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Sunil Kumar

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Poonam Devi