Dismissed

Jabeena N M v. Federal Bank

DRT30 Jun 2026SA/11/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Securitization Application challenging SARFAESI proceedings and possession notice. The Tribunal held the limitation barred the challenge, statutory requirements were met, and the applicant failed to prove default or other grounds.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application No.11 of 2024 stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

Jabeena N M versus Federal Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 30^th DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 11 of 2024

¶6

Between

¶7

Jabeena N.M., W/o Muhammed Nazarudeen Naduvilodiparambu House, Purayar, Desom P.O., Aluva, Ernakulam.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

The Federal Bank Ltd. Loan Collection & Recovery Division Federal Towers, Marine Drive, Ernakulam – 682 031 Rep. by its Assistant Vice President (Authorized Officer)

¶11

--- Defendant

¶12

This Securitization Application coming on 25.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Akash George, Counsel for the Applicant and Ms.Arya representing the Counsel on record 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:

¶13

SA No.11 of 2024

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Securitisation Application was filed on 03.01.2024 seeking to declare that the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the defendant bank is illegal and to declare that Annexure-A1 demand notice is illegal and void and to award the cost of the applicant.

¶16

M/s. Jan Kafath Engineering Co. which is a partnership Firm availed cash credit facility of Rs.30,00,000/- on 19.10.2018 from the defendant bank. The applicant who is one of the partners of the above Firm is also a co-obligant to the aforesaid credit facility. Another coobligant by name Mr. Ashraf K.M. has created equitable mortgage over his immovable property as described in Annexure-A1 demand notice by deposit of title deed with the defendant bank.

¶17

Due to default in repayment of the outstanding loan due, the loan account of the above said partnership firm came to be classified as Non-Performing Asset on 23.03.2022. Annexure-A1 demand notice dated 31.03.2022 was issued to the applicant, the principal borrower and other co-obligants 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 applicant, co-obligants and the principal borrower sent Annexure-A2 representation to the defendant for the demand notice. The defendant sent reply Annexure-B1 (b) to them.

¶18

Since the liability due to the defendant bank was not discharged Annexure-B2 possession notice dated 30.07.2022 was issued for symbolically taking possession of the secured asset. Possession notice was published in newspapers Annexure-B2(a) and it was also affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured asset as evidenced from the perusal of Annexure-B2 (b) photographs.

¶19

Thereafter, the defendant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and filed Annexure-A7 application and affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Order came to be passed appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued notice dated 23.12.2023 Annexure-A3 to the applicant and coobligants informing them that she would take physical possession of the secured asset. The applicant having aggrieved against the above measures filed this S.A seeking for the reliefs as stated supra.

¶20

The counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that no default was committed in repayment of the outstanding loan due and that Annexure-A2 representation submitted by them was not

¶21

Page 2 of 6

¶22

SA No.11 of 2024

¶23

considered by the defendant and that reply was not sent for the representation and that possession notice was not served to the applicant and it was not affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured asset and that security interest was not registered with the Central Registry and that Annexure-A7 application and affidavit is defective and that the defendant failed to produce the account statement before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and that therefore the SA may be allowed as prayed for

¶24

Counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that since the applicant, co-obligant and principal borrower defaulted in repaying the outstanding loan due, the loan account was classified as NonPerforming Asset as per the guidelines of the RBI and that for Annexure-A2 representation, AnnexureB1(b) reply was sent to them and that possession notice was served to the applicant, co-obligant and principal borrower and that it was published in two leading newspapers and it was affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured asset and that possession notice was not challenged within the prescribed period of limitation and that therefore, any challenge on the possession notice is barred by limitation and the secured asset has been registered with the Central Registry in ID No.400050517708 and that Annexure-B3 (a) application and affidavit was filed in MC No.394/23 in compliance of the requirements of the proviso to Sec. 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 and that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam after having perused the petition, affidavit and the supporting documents and having satisfied over the same, appointed Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset and that the outstanding amount as on 05.02.2025 is Rs.1,06,69,746.92 and that therefore, SA may be dismissed with cost to the defendant bank.

¶25

The applicant has not produced copy of the account statement in order to prove his contention that no default was committed in repayment of the outstanding loan due. For Annexure-A2 representation/objection submitted by the applicant, co-obligant and principal borrower, suitable reply Annexure-B1 (b) was sent by the defendant. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that reply was not sent by the defendant is absolutely false. Security interest over the secured asset has been registered with Central Registry. The ID No.400050517708 has been furnished in the written statement as a proof of registration.

¶26

The defendant has produced Annexure-B2, B2 (a) and B2 (b) in order to prove the contention that possession notice was served to them and that it was published in Indian Express edition daily dated 4.8.2022 and Mangalam edition daily dated 4.8.2022. Be that as it may, possession notice was issued on 30.07.2022, no challenge was made against the possession notice within a period of 45 days from

¶27

Page 3 of 6

¶28

SA No.11 of 2024

¶29

the date of issuance of the possession notice. Hence, this Tribunal finds considerable force in the submission of the counsel for the defendant that the applicant cannot challenge the possession notice in this S.A.

¶30

A perusal of Annexure-A7 application and affidavit shows that all the statutory requirements contemplated under Clause (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 has been complied with by the defendant bank. The applicant has not produced copy of the order passed in MC No.394/23 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. However, there is no specific challenge or pleading in the SA with regard to the above order.

¶31

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

¶32

Resultantly, S.A No.11 of 2024 stands dismissed. However, no order as to costs.

¶33

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30^th day of June, 2026.

¶34

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 4 of 6

SA No.11 of 2024

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

¶39

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	31.03.2022	True copy of the demand notice issued bythe defendant.	Annexure-A1
2.	14.05.2022	True copy of the representation submitted by applicant and 4 others to the defendant.	Annexure-A2
3.	23.12.2023	True copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner in MC 394/2023 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs),Ernakulam.	Annexure-A3
4.	30.07.2022	True copy of the possession notice	Annexure-A4
5.	---	True copy of the PAN card of the Jan- Kafath Engineering Co. bearing No AAPFJ9237P	Annexure-A5
6.	---	True copy of the CERSAI report	Annexure-A6
9.	---	True copy of Sec. 14 application and the affidavit.	Annexure-A7

¶40

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

¶41

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	31.03.2022	True copy of the demand notice and its acknowledgment cards.	Annexure-B1
2.	11.06.2022	True copy of the objection of the applicant.	Annexure- B1(a)
3.	14.06.2022	True copy of the reply of Authorized Officer and its acknowledgment cards	Annexure- B1(b)
4.	30.07.2022	True copy of the possession notice and it acknowledgment cards	Annexure-B2

¶42

Page 5 of 6

¶43

SA No.11 of 2024

¶44

5.	04.08.2022	True copy of the paper publication in The Indian Express daily and Mangalam daily.	Annexure- B2(a)
6.	---	True copy of the photographs affixed on the secured asset.	Annexure- B2(b)
7.	---	True copy of affidavit filed in MC No.394 of 2023 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Ernakulam.	Annexure-B3
8.	---	True copy of application filed in MC No.394 of 2023 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Ernakulam.	Annexure- B3(a)

¶45

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶46

Mj/

¶47

Page 6 of 6

Jabeena N M v. Federal Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jabeena N M v. Federal 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

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Anugya Enterprises

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) versus M/s Maa Sharde Agritech

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Balajee Coal Depot

Manoj Kumar Sharma versus Punjab National Bank

Sri Ram Bhagat Sharma versus Icici Bank Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Niraj Marble and Tiles and Ors.