Dismissed

Pm Sasi v. State Bank of India

DRT7 Aug 2025SA/970/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Applicants' Securitization Application seeking to set aside proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal held that the bank substantially complied with statutory requirements, the authorized officer's designation was valid, and asset descriptions were accurate.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed; no order as to costs.

Pm Sasi versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 07^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 970 of 2024

¶6

Between

¶7

P.M. Sasi,

¶8

S/o. Meppalli Kanaran Panikkar,

¶9

M/s P.M. Traders, Residing at Padinhare Mappilli House, Iyyamkode, Nadapuram P.O., Vadakara, Kozhikode 673 504.

¶10

P.M. Jayalakshmi,

¶11

W/o. P.M. Sasi, M/s P.M. Traders, Residing at Padinhare Mappilli House, Iyyamkode, Nadapuram P.O., Vadakara, Kozhikode 673 504.

¶12

--- Applicants

¶13

And

¶14

State Bank of India Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-II, represented by its Chief Manager & Authorized Officer, 1^st Floor, R.S. Building, M.G. Road, Ernakulam.

¶15

--- Defendant

¶16

This Securitization Application coming on 03.06.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Dipu James, Counsel

¶17

SA No.970 of 2024

¶18

appearing for the Applicants and Mr. Rajesh Rajagopala Pillai, Counsel appearing for the Defendant and upon hearing arguments of learned Counsels for both the parties and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Securitisation Application was filed on 24.12.2024 seeking to set aside all proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A2 and A3 and allow the SA with costs of the applicants.

¶21

The applicants have admitted the availment of the cash credit facility and housing loan from the defendant bank upon creation of equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds over the 1^st applicant’s immovable property comprised in Survey No. 32/4, Respondentsurvey No.36/3 in Nadupuram Village, Vadakara Taluk and another property of the 1^st applicant’s property comprised in Re-survey No.36/3 in Ayyankode Village, Vadakara Taluk, as the collateral security for the availment of the aforesaid credit facilities, in favour of the defendant bank.

¶22

The applicants have also admitted their default in repayment of the outstanding loan due to the defendant bank. Hence the loan accounts of the applicants came to be classified as Non-performing Asset on 26.09.2023 and Annexure-A1 demand notice dated 20.04.2024 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 applicants neither sent any objection/representation to the demand notice nor did they clear off their liability due to the defendant bank.

¶23

Since the applicants had failed to respond to the terms of the demand notice, Possession Notice dated 28.08.2024 Annexure-B1 was issued for taking physical possession of the secured assets. Annexure-B2 copy of postal acknowledgment cards evidences the receipt of the Possession Notice by the applicants. The defendants have also produced Annexure-B3 to Annexures-B5 copies of paper publications and copy of photograph in order to show that Possession Notice was published in Hindu edition dated 28.08.2024 and Mangalam edition dated 28.08.2024 and it was affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured assets.

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

SA No.970 of 2024

¶26

Annexure B6 Id based search report shows that security interest was registered with Central Registry.

¶27

Subsequently, the defendant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Kozhikode and filed Annexure-A2 application and Annexure A3 affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Annexure A4 Order dated 15.11.2024 came to be passed in M.C. No.2975/2024 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure A5 notice dated 11.12.2024 to the applicants informing them that he would take physical possession of the secured assets on 27.12.2024. The applicants having aggrieved against the above measures filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

¶28

The counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that Annexure A2 application and Annexure A3 affidavit filed in CMP No. No.2975/2024 is in contravention of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and that the total amount claimed by the defendant bank as on the date of filing of the application and affidavit is not mentioned and that therefore, Annexures A3 and A4 are liable to set aside.

¶29

The counsel for the applicants submitted further that the applicants are desirous of settling the loan accounts by disposing of one of the properties of the applicants and that they are also ready and willing to regularise their loan accounts if some breathing time is granted and that therefore, the SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶30

The counsel appearing for the defendant bank submitted that Annexure A2 application and Annexure A3 affidavit was filed in compliance with the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and that the total amount claimed is also stated in Annexure A3 affidavit and that order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode is correct that the applicants did not make any efforts to settle their loan accounts and that description of the secured assets is correct and that the SA may be dismissed with costs to the defendant bank.

¶31

In Annexure A3 affidavit it is clearly stated that the total claim of the defendant bank with regard to both loan accounts of the applicants is Rs. 62,66,939/- as on 07.10.2024. It cannot be disputed that the application and affidavit were filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode on 08.10.2024. The mere one day delay

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

SA No.970 of 2024

¶34

in filing the application and affidavit could not have caused any prejudice to the applicants in any manner.

¶35

The Hon’ble High Court of Telengana has held in Tulsi Roacks Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Bank of India and Ors .(Writ Petition No. 5018 of 2019) as follows:-

¶36

“wherever this Court finds that the parameters indicated in Clauses (i) to (ix) of the first proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act are broadly complied with, the Court is bound to invoke the doctrine of ‘substantial compliance’. It must be remembered that Clauses (i) to (ix) of the first proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act merely provide the form in which the essential averments for an application under Section 14 of the Act are to be made. Therefore, what is important, is the substance and not the form.”

¶37

A perusal of Annexure A3 affidavit shows that all other statutory requirements contemplated under clause (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been substantially complied with by the defendant bank as laid down in the afore cited Judgment.

¶38

On perusal of Annexure-A4 order shows that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Kozhikode after having perused the contents of the affidavit and the documents produced along with the affidavit and after having satisfied over the same, appointed Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured assets. This Tribunal does not find any infirmity or procedural irregularity in the above order.

¶39

Section 13 (12) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 says that the rights of the secured creditor can be exercised by one or more of its officers authorised in the manner as may be prescribed. The term “authorised officer” is defined under Rule 2(a) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, as an officer of the secured creditor who is competent to exercise the rights of the secured creditor and also the right of the creditor secured under the Act.

¶40

In Annexure A2 application and in Annexure A3 affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner bank is represented by the authorised officer, State Bank of India, Asset Recovery Branch, M.G. Road, Ernakulam. There is no specific bar in the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, that the Chief Manager of the secured creditor cannot act as the authorised officer of

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

SA No.970 of 2024

¶43

the secured creditor. Therefore, the Tribunal does not find any substance in the contention of the applicant in the SA that the authorised officer is not qualified under the SARFAESI Act.

¶44

On perusal of Schedule to the demand notice, Annexure B3 possession notice and Annexure A2 application and Annexure A3 affidavit shows that the description of the secured assets referred to therein are correct. Hence, the contention of the applicants in the SA that description of the secured asset is incorrect does not hold good.

¶45

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.

¶46

Resultantly, S.A No.970 of 2024 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 07^th day of August, 2025.

¶48

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

al/

Page 5 of 6

SA No.970 of 2024

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

¶53

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	20.04.2024	True copy oftheDemandNotice.	Annexure-A1
2.	---	True copy of application filed as CMP No.2975/2024 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Kozhikode.	Annexure-A2
3.	---	True copy of affidavit filed in support of CMP No.2975/24 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate CourtKozhikode	Annexure-A3
4.	15.11.2024	True copy of the order by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Kozhikode appointingAdvocate Commissioner	Annexure-A4
5.	11.12.2024	True copy of the Advocate Commissioner notice.	Annexure-A5

¶54

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

¶55

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	28.08.2024	True copy ofthePossession Noti	ce	Annexure-B1
2.	---	True copy of the Acknowledgment cards evidenc receipt ofthePossession Notice	postal ing the	Annexure-B2 Series
3.	28.08.2024	True copy of the Possession published in The Hindu(English	Notice )	Annexure-B3
4.	28.08.2024	True copy of the Possession published in Mangalam(Malayal	Notice am)	Annexure-B4
5.	---	True copy of the phot evidencingaffixture.	ographs	Annexure-B5
6.	---	True copy of printouts of search report.	CERSAI	Annexure-B6

¶56

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶57

Page 6 of 6

Pm Sasi v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pm Sasi v. State Bank of India

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Kakkar Fashion

Punjab National Bank versus Rakesh Singh Pundir

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Pargal Confectionary and Snacks India Private Limited

Davinder Kaur versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Deorali Speciality Tea Private Limited and Ors.

Federal Bank Ltd. versus Sogy Peter