Dismissed

Rubeena Thansi K v. Canara Bank

DRT10 Apr 2026MA/60/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

During S.A. No. 66 of 2025, applicants settled with the respondent bank and obtained Tribunal permission to withdraw the application without a liberty to revive. Upon failure to pay the settled amount within the stipulated time, applicants filed M.A. 60 of 2026 seeking to recall the withdrawal order and revive the S.A. The Tribunal dismissed the petition as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

M.A. 60 of 2026 dismissed; order dated 05.12.2025 permitting withdrawal remains intact.

Rubeena Thansi K versus Canara Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 10^th DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶4

PRESENT: Su. WILLYAHM, B.Sc., M.L.

¶5

[DISTRICT JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶6

M.A No. 60 of 2026

¶7

¶8

S.A No. 66 of 2025

¶9

Between

¶10

Sahad P., S/o. Abdulla P. Perumbalathu House, Kunduthodu, Eranjikode, Edavanna, Malappuram 676541.

¶11

Rubeena Thansi K., W/o. Sahad P., Perumbalathu House, Kunduthodu, Eranjikode, Edavanna, Malappuram 676541.

¶12

--- Petitioners/Applicants

¶13

And

¶14

The Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, Regional office, Malappuram, 586/ABCD, Varnam Arcade Machingal Bypass Malappuram 676 509.

¶15

Canara Bank, Edavanna Branch, Malappuram, 586/ABCD, Varnam Arcade Machingal Bypass Malappuram 676 509

¶16

Represented by its Chief Manager.

¶17

--- Respondents/Defendants

¶18

MA No.60/2026 in SA 66/2025

¶19

¶20

This petition coming on 10.04.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Mr. V. Philip Mathews, Counsel appearing for the petitioners/ applicants and Mr. Isac T. Paul, Counsel appearing for the respondents/ defendants and upon hearing arguments of both sides’ Counsels and upon perusing the material records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

M.A No.60/2026 in S.A No.66/2025:- This petition has been filed by the petitioners/applicants praying to recall the order dated 05.12.2025 and to pass fresh orders on it.

¶23

The counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the S.A, the petitioners submitted OTS proposal to the 2nd respondent bank and that since it was accepted, this Tribunal permitted the petitioners to withdraw the SA on 05.12.2025 on the ground that matter was settled between the petitioners and respondents. Since the petitioners could not pay the sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/- on or before 30.12.2025 as stipulated under OTS scheme, the petitioners sent request to extend the time and they have not received any official communication from the 2nd respondent bank. Therefore, the petitioners seek to recall the order dated 05.12.2025. The counsel appearing for the petitioners also drew the attention of this Tribunal to the provisions of Sec.17(7) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the provisions of Sec. 19 (25) and 22 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 submitting that this Tribunal has got power to recall the above order.

¶24

The counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submitted that once this Tribunal passed order permitting the petitioners to withdraw the SA and that SA has been dismissed s withdrawn, the above order cannot be recalled and that this petition which is not maintainable, may be dismissed.

¶25

The petitioners are the applicants in the SA which has been filed seeking to set aside Annexure-A5 possession notice and A11 sale notice and for other reliefs. During the pendency of the SA, the petitioners filed memo in ID No.20484/2025 on 05.12.2025 praying this Tribunal as follows:

¶26

“During the pendency of the proceedings, the matter has been amicably settled me and the defendant bank, as per the terms of the settlement letter dated 23.10.2025, which is annexed herewith.

¶27

In view of the said settlement, I humbly seek leave of this Tribunal to withdraw the present Securitization Application, with liberty to revive the same in the event of any breach of terms of the settlement. Therefore, I humbly requested this Tribunal may be pleased to record

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

MA No.60/2026 in SA 66/2025

¶30

¶31

the settlement and permit me to withdraw the above Securitization Application with the aforesaid liberty.”

¶32

This Tribunal having heard the submission of both sides’ counsels and having perused the contents of the memo, permitted the applicants to withdraw the SA, but without giving any liberty to revive or restore the SA to file on the ground that after dismissal of the SA as withdrawn it cannot be revive or restore to fie as prayed for by the applicants.

¶33

This Tribunal on having perused the provision of Sec.17 (7) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the provisions of Sec.19 (25) and 22 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 is not convinced to accept the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioners that this Tribunal has power to restore the SA to file. The failure of the applicants to comply with the terms of the OTS proposal cannot be a justifiable reason to restore the SA to file in order to proceed further.

¶34

In view of the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that this petition is not at all maintainable.

¶35

Resultantly, this petition, M.A. No.60 of 2026 stands dismissed.

¶36

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 10^th day of April, 2026.

¶37

[Su. WILLYAHM] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶38

Mj/

¶39

Page 3 of 3

Rubeena Thansi K v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rubeena Thansi K v. Canara Bank

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 (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Mr Naresh Kumar

Uco Bank versus M/S Karwal Gas Service

Bank of India versus Ranjit Kaur

Ms Sarkar Cements Products Proprietor Beline Begum versus State Bank of India

Icici Bank Limited versus Sakir

Central Bank of India versus Srk Enterprises