Dismissed

Sheriff P B v. Bank of Baroda

DRT13 Aug 2026SA/129/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants challenged a sale of a mortgaged property under SARFAESI Act, claiming procedural violations regarding sale notices and inadequate reserve price. The Debts Recovery Tribunal examined submissions, evidence of notice service, valuation reports, and auction records. The Tribunal found sufficient procedural compliance, reasonable reserve price, and no evidence of collusion, dismissing the a

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sheriff P B versus Bank of Baroda — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 13^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2026

¶4

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

¶5

SA No.129/2025

¶6

Between

¶7

Sheriff P.B., S/o I. Basheer, B3, Jawahar Jewel Apartments, Jawahar Nagar, Kadavanthra P.O. Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 020.

¶8

Ramla Sheriff, W/o Sheriff P.B. B3, Jawahar Jewel Apartments, Jawahar Nagar, Kadavanthra P.O. Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 020.

¶9

P.H. Muhammed Ali, S/o Hydrose, Puthiyedath House, Muttam P.O. Thaikkattukara, Aluva, Ernakulam – 683 106.

¶10

Araf P.B., S/o. I. Basheer, 3C, ABAD Olympus, Raghavan Pillai Road, Edappally, Ernakulam 682024.

¶11

Ashraff P.B., S/o. I. Basheer, Puthiyedath House, Muttam P.O. Thaikkattukara, Aluva,

¶12

Ernakulam – 683 106.

--- Applicants

SA No.129 of 2025

And

Bank of Baroda, Represented by its Manager, Palarivattom Branch, Mamangalam, Ernakulam 682 025.

¶17

The Authorized Officer, Zonal Stressed Asset Recovery Branch, 45, Moore Street, 4^th Floor,

¶18

JBAS Building, Chennai-600 001.

¶19

Aluva Barrels Corporation, 14/115, NH 544, Muttom, Thaikkattukara P.O., Aluva, Ernakulam 683 106.

¶20

--- Defendants

¶21

This Securitization Application coming on 21.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Peer Mohammed Khan, Counsel appearing for the Applicants and Mr. Chackochan, Counsel appearing for the defendants 1 & 2 and Mr. P.R. Milton, Counsel appearing for the 3^rd defendant and upon hearing arguments of learned Counsels for all the parties and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This Securitisation Application was filed on 14.02.2025 seeking to set aside Annexure-A1 and A3 sale notices and to set aside the sale of item No.2 property in Annexure-A1 sale notice in favour of the 3^rd defendant /auction purchaser and to set aside Annexure-A6, A7 and A8 sale notices and order to pay the cost of the proceedings to the applicants from defendants 1 and 2.

¶24

The applicants availed various credit facility from the 1^st defendant bank upon creation of equitable mortgage over the immovable properties by deposit of title deeds in favour of the 1^st defendant bank. Since the applicants defaulted in repayment of the outstanding loan due, their loan accounts became Non-Performing Asset on 31.12.2015. Hence demand notice dated 12.02.2016 was issued to the applicants calling upon them to pay the outstanding

¶25

Page 2 of 14

¶26

SA No.129 of 2025

¶27

loan due within the period of 60 days from the date of receipt of notice.

¶28

The defendants initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act 2002 and the Rules made there under. The applicants and other borrowers/ guarantors filed SA Nos. 297/2016 and SA No. 144/2016 and the third parties filed SA No. 162/2018 before this Tribunal, challenging the aforesaid measures. During the pendency of SA No.297/2016, counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 submitted before this Tribunal that physical possession of the secured assets was taken on 21.06.2016. Thereafter SA No. 297/2016 was disposed of by this Tribunal as not pressed in view of settlement arrived at between the applicants and other borrowers and guarantors. OTS proposal was not materialised due to non compliance of terms and condition, though the borrowers paid a sum of Rs. 5.25 Crores towards OTS proposal.

¶29

Therefore, Annexure-A1 sale notice dated 04.01.2025 was issued for sale of the secured assets on 22.01.2025. Item No. 2 of the secured assets was sold in E -auction conducted on 22.01.2025 to the highest bidder who is the 3^rd defendant herein. After confirmation of sale Annexure-D3(1) sale certificate dated 12.06.2025 was issued to the 3^rd defendant.

¶30

Annexure-A3 sale notice dated 29.01.2025 issued for sale of the remaining 2 items of the secured assets, sale was not fructified. Hence Annexure-A6 sale notice dated 21.02.2025 was issued for the sale of the remaining 2 items of the secured assets, sale was not fructified. Therefore, Annexure-A7 sale notice dated 24.07.2025 was issued, sale was not fructified. Hence Annexure-A8 sale notice dated 16.09.2025 was issued. Sale was not fructified for want of bidders. The applicants having aggrieved against the aforesaid measures have filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

¶31

The counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that possession notice dated 22.06.2016 was not served on all the parties to the loan transaction and that it was not affixed on the secured assets and that it was not published in two newspapers including one in vernacular language, within the stipulated period.

¶32

The counsel for the applicants submitted further that Annexure – A1 sale notice dated 04.01.2025 was issued belatedly for sale of the secured assets on 22.01.2025 and that it was served on the applicants

¶33

Page 3 of 14

¶34

SA No.129 of 2025

¶35

on or after 16.01.2025 without giving sufficient time period of 30 days or 15 days from the date of despatch of the notice as evidenced from Annexure – A2 postal track report and that sale notice was not published in two newspapers including one in vernacular language and that sale notice was not affixed on the secured assets within the stipulated period and that defendants 1 & 2 have violated the Rules 8(6), 8(7) and 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002.

¶36

The counsel for the applicant submitted further that Annexure – A3 sale notice, Annexure – A6 sale notice, Annexure – A7 sale notice and Annexure – A8 sale notice were served on the applicants belatedly and that the aforesaid sale notices were not published in two newspapers including one in vernacular language and that sale notices were not affixed on the secured assets.

¶37

The counsel for the applicants submitted further that the reserve prices fixed in the sale notices is very low when compared to the market price. Item Nos.2 & 3 of the properties described in Annexure – A1 sale notice are situated in Block 34 of Aluva West Village, adjoining to the NH-544 Salem Kochi National Highway and that these properties are situated before the Aluva Metro Line. The property adjoining the secured assets was acquired for the construction of extra high tension line for the Kochi Metro Rail Ltd. and the compensation amount of Rs.17.50 Lakhs per cent was given by the Kerala Government as per the proceedings of Annexure – A5. The defendants 1 & 2 violated Rule 8(5) of the SARFAESI Act in obtaining valuation report from approved valuer and having consultation with the secured creditor for fixing the reserve price in the sale notices. The amount mentioned in the sale notices is incorrect. Since the defendants 1 & 2 committed procedural irregularities in respect of the issuance of the sale notices and sale of item No.2 of the secured assets, SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶38

The counsel appearing for the defendants 1 & 2 submitted that physical possession of the secured asset was taken on 21.06.2016 after issuance of possession notice and that it was published in two dailies having wide circulation in the area and that it was affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured assets and that the applicant filed SA No.297/2016 challenging the possession notice and that SA was subsequently dismissed as not pressed and that therefore, the applicants have no legal right to challenge the possession notice in this SA.

¶39

Page 4 of 14

¶40

SA No.129 of 2025

¶41

The counsel for the defendants 1 & 2 submitted further that the applicants and other borrowers/guarantors were served with Annexure – A1 sale notice dated 04.01.2025 and that the sale notice was published in two leading newspapers one in vernacular language and that it was affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured assets and that the applicants intentionally delayed in receiving the sale notice which is evident from the postal track reports Annexures – A2 & A4 and that the mandatory requirement of giving 15 days notice is no more res-integra as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celir LLP Vs. Sumathi Prasad Bafna and Others .

¶42

The counsel for the defendants 1 & 2 submitted further that item No.2 of the secured assets mentioned in Annexure – A1 sale notice was sold in the auction held on 22.01.2025 for the sale consideration of Rs.71,00,000/- to the highest bidder who is the 3^rd defendant and that after confirmation of sale, sale certificate Annexure – R12 was issued to him and that sale certificate was registered on 12.06.2025 and that sold property was mutated in the name of the auction purchaser and that tax receipt Annexure – R55 and that there was no collusion or inadequate pricing or under bidding in respect of sale of the property and that once sale is confirmed and sale certificate is issued, it should not be set aside for the mere alleged irregularities, unless there is evidence of fraud, collusion or gross undervaluation.

¶43

The counsel for the defendants 1 & 2 submitted further 30 days sale notice dated 10.02.2017 Annexure – R36 was served to the applicants and other borrowers/guarantors and that Annexures – R36 to R40 sale notices were also served to the applicants and other borrowers/guarantors and that the aforesaid sale notices were published in two newspapers including one in vernacular language and that the sale notices were affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured assets and that reserve price was fixed in the sale notice after obtaining valuation report.

¶44

The counsel for the defendants 1 & 2 submitted further that Annexures – A1 & A3 and Annexures – A6 to A8 sale notices were issued to the applicants and other borrowers/guarantors providing 15 days time and that the aforesaid sale notices were published in two leading newspapers including one in vernacular language and the sale notice was affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured assets. The sale price received by the sale of the property is much higher than the fair value of the land fixed by the Government of Kerala. The fair value of the property situated in Re. Sy. No.93/2 of Block No.34 of

¶45

Page 5 of 14

¶46

SA No.129 of 2025

¶47

Aluva West Village, Aluva Taluk, Ernakulam District fixed by the Government of Kerala is Rs.7,92,000/- per Ares. Thus the fair value for 5.3 Ares is Rs.41,97,600/- which is much much lesser than the reserve price of Rs.70,00,000/- fixed by the defendants 1 & 2. Fair value report in respect of the aforesaid property published in the official Gazette of the Government of Kerala has been produced as Annexure – R54. The property was sold in the auction for Rs.71,00,000/-. Therefore, the contention of the applicants that reserve price fixed for the property is very low is incorrect. Final order was passed in OA 522/2016 on 27.03.2025 by this Tribunal issuing recovery certificate for recovery of an amount of Rs.12,39,07,047.13 plus interest and charges. The applicants have not remitted any amount towards the loan account due even after passing of the above final order. Therefore, SA may be dismissed with the costs to the defendants.

¶48

The counsel appearing for the 3^rd defendant submitted further that the defendants 1 & 2 complied with all the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made there under in respect of issuance of Annexure – A1 sale notice and sale of the property and that Annexure – A1 sale notice is the 5^th sale notice and that 3^rd defendant became the successful bidder to bid the property on 22.01.2025 for a sale consideration of Rs.71,00,000/- against the reserve price of Rs.70,00,000/- which is more than the market value of the property. After issuance of sale certificate and registration of the same, the property has been mutated in favour of the 3^rd defendant. He has paid land tax for the property.

¶49

The counsel for the 3^rd defendant submitted further that the property sold is undervalued and the reserve price is low is baseless and that the applicants failed to prove any other illegality or fraud or under valuation with regard to the sale of the property and that therefore, SA may be dismissed with costs to the 3^rd defendant.

¶50

The applicants filed SA No.297/2016 challenging the possession notice and other measures before this Tribunal. Subsequently, at their instance, the above SA was dismissed as not pressed. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled to raise any contention in respect of the possession notice in this SA.

¶51

The applicants have produced the sale notices Annexures – A1, A3 and A6 to A8; but they have omitted knowingly or unknowingly to aver in the SA with regard to issuance of earlier sale notices which has

¶52

Page 6 of 14

¶53

SA No.129 of 2025

¶54

been produced by the defendants 1 & 2 as Annexures – R36 to R40, Annexure – R48, Annexure – R49, Annexure – R50. Annexure – R36 dated 10.02.2017 appears to be the first sale notice. The defendants 1 & 2 have produced copies of postal acknowledgment cards, copies of paper publications as Annexures – R41 to R47, R48(a), R48(b), R49(a), R49(b), R50(a), R50(b), R51 to R53 in order to prove their contention that the aforesaid sale notices were served upon the applicants, other borrowers and guarantors and the sale notices were published in two leading newspapers one in vernacular language. It is evident that the applicants have suppressed the issuance of the abovesaid sale notices in the SA for the best reasons known to them. Annexure – R35 is the valuation report dated 17.09.2024.

¶55

Annexures – R20, R21 and R35 are the valuation reports pertaining to three items of the secured assets obtained by the defendants 1 & 2 for fixing the reserve price in the sale notices. Therefore, the contention of the applicants that reserve price for the secured assets was fixed in the sale notices without obtaining proper valuation reports is absolutely incorrect.

¶56

Since the applicants are mainly challenging Annexures – A1, A3 and A6 to A8 sale notices in this SA, this Tribunal considers that no discussion is to be made in respect of Annexures – R36 to R40, R49 and R50 sale notices which have been voluntarily produced by the defendants 1 & 2 alongwith their counter affidavits filed for the interlocutory applications filed by the applicants.

¶57

The defendants 1 & 2 have produced copies of paper publications, postal receipts and photographs as Annexures – R2 to R5 in order to prove their contention that Annexure – A1 sale notice dated 04.01.2025 was published in two newspapers including one in vernacular language having wide circulation in their area and that sale notice was served to the applicants and that it was affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured assets. Therefore, the contention of the applicants that sale notice was not published in two newspapers one in vernacular language having wide circulation in the area and that sale notice was not affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured assets within the stipulated period is absolutely incorrect.

¶58

The applicants have produced postal track report in respect of Annexure – A1 sale notice as Annexure – A2 and Annexure – A4 postal track report in respect of Annexure – A3 sale notice in order to prove their contention that 15 days gap between the date of receipt of the

¶59

Page 7 of 14

¶60

SA No.129 of 2025

¶61

sale notice and sale of the property was not given. A perusal of Annexure – A2 postal track report shows that post containing Annexure – A1 sale notice was booked on 07.01.2025 and that it was despatched for delivery on 10.01.2025. Item could not be delivered on the ground that addressee could not be located. Post was again taken out for delivery on 13.01.2025, it could not be delivered on the ground that door had been locked; but there is an endorsement that intimation was served. Finally, the post was delivered on 16.01.2025. The aforesaid endorsements in Annexure – A2 shows that the applicants intentionally delayed in receiving the sale notices. Be that as it may, the date of Annexure – A1 sale notice is 04.01.2025, it was despatched on 07.01.2025, the date of the sale of the property is 20.02.2025. It cannot be disputed that Annexure – A1 sale notice is subsequent sale notice and not the first sale notice for sale of the secured assets. Therefore, it is evident that more than 15 days had been granted for sale of the property i.e. to say from the date of despatch of the sale notice till the date of sale. Therefore, this Tribunal does not find any force in the submission of the counsel for the applicants that Annexure – A1 sale notice was issued belatedly and that it was served on the applicants belatedly without giving sufficient time period of 30 days or 15 days from the date of despatch of the notice.

¶62

The reserve price fixed in Annexure – A1 sale notice for the first item of the property is Rs.5,04,92,000/-; for the 2^nd item of the property is Rs.70,00,000/-; and for the 3^rd item of the property is Rs.4,38,13,000/-. Item No.2 of the property was sold in the auction held on 22.01.2025 for a sale consideration of Rs.71,00,000/- to the highest bidder who is the 3^rd defendant herein.

¶63

The applicants have produced Annexure – A5 true copy of meeting minutes of the District Level Purchase Committee chaired by the District Collector, Ernakulam in order to prove their contention that the reserve prices fixed in the sale notices is very low when compared to the market price and that Item Nos.2 & 3 of the properties described in Annexure – A1 sale notice are situated in Block 34 of Aluva West Village, adjoining the NH-544 Salem Kochi National Highway and that these properties are situated before the Aluva Metro Line. The property adjoining the secured assets was acquired for the construction of extra high tension line for the Kochi Metro Rail Ltd. and the compensation amount of Rs.17.50 Lakhs per cent was given by the Kerala Government as per the proceedings of Annexure – A5.

¶64

Page 8 of 14

¶65

SA No.129 of 2025

¶66

The defendants 1 & 2 have produced Annexure – R54 which is a Kerala Gazette Notification with regard to fixation of fair value of land in Kerala, in order to prove their contention, that the reserve price fixed for the properties in the Annexure – A1 sale notice is much higher than the fair value of the property fixed by the Government of Kerala. A perusal of the same shows that the fair value of the property situated in Re. Sy. No.93/2 of Block No.34 of Aluva West Village, Aluva Taluk, Ernakulam District fixed by the Government of Kerala is Rs.7,92,000/- per Ares. The extent of 2^nd item of the properties is 5.30 Ares. Thus the fair value for 5.3 Ares is Rs.41,97,600/- (7,92,000 x 5.3) which is much much lesser than the reserve price of Rs.70,00,000/- as contended by the defendants 1 & 2. However, fixation of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act for awarding compensation to the claimants in respect of their properties cannot be considered for fixation of reserve price sale of the secured assets in the auction. Therefore, this Tribunal holds that the fixation of reserve price of the properties in Annexure – A1 sale notice is not very low as submitted by the counsel for the applicants.

¶67

The defendants 1 & 2 subsequently issued Annexure – A3 and Annexures – A6 to A8 sale notices for sale of the other items of the secured assets. Neither the applicants nor the defendants 1 & 2 have not averred in the SA as to whether sale was fructified pursuant to the issuance of the aforesaid sale notices. The defendants have produced copies of postal receipts, postal acknowledgment cards, paper publications, photographs as Annexures – R7 to R10, R14 to R19, R23(a), R23(b), R23(c), R24, R24(a), R25 to R28 and R30, R30(a), R30(b), R30(c), R30(d), R31, R31(a), R31(b), R31(c), R31(d), R32 to R34 and R41 to R47 and R48(a), R49(a), R49(b), R50(a), R50(b), R51 to R53 in order to prove their contention with regard to service of Annexures – A2 and A6 to A8 sale notices to the applicants and publication of the sale notices in two leading newspapers one in vernacular language and affixture of sale notice on the conspicuous part of the secured assets. A perusal of the same strengthens the contention of the defendants 1 & 2. They have produced valuation report reports dated 22.01.2025. 02.10.2024 and 17.09.2024 as Annexures – R11, R21 & R22 respectively. Therefore, the contention of the applicants that the reserve price of the properties were fixed without obtaining valuation report does not hold good.

¶68

The 3^rd defendant is the successful bidder to bid the 2^nd item of the property for a sale consideration for Rs.71 Lakhs in the auction

¶69

Page 9 of 14

¶70

SA No.129 of 2025

¶71

held on 22.01.2025 pursuant to issuance of Annexure – A1 sale notice. The applicants have not produced any material before this Tribunal to show that there was collusion between the defendants 1 & 2 and the 3^rd defendant in respect of bidding or the 2^nd item of the properties. The documents produced by the defendants 1 & 2 does not reveal that they committed any procedural irregularity in respect of issuance of Annexures – A1, A3 & A6 to A8 sale notices.

¶72

This Tribunal having considered the above submission of both sides counsels and the averments of the SA and the written statement of the defendants 1 to 3 and the documents produced by the respective parties in support of their case finds that there are no valid reasons and grounds to set aside the sale of the 2^nd item of the secured assets to the 3^rd defendant and that as such the applicants are not entitled to get any relief sought for in the SA, since they have failed to prove their case.

¶73

In view of the forgoing reasons and discussions, this Tribunal holds that since the applicants are not entitled to get any reliefs sought for in the SA which deserves to be dismissed. In the result, this SA No.129/2025 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶74

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13^th day of August, 2026.

¶75

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶76

Page 10 of 14

¶77

SA No.129 of 2025

¶78

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

¶79

Sl.	Date	Particulars
No.
1.	04.01.2025	True copy of the sale notice issued by the defendant bank for the e-auction sale scheduled on22.01.2025.	Annexure-A1
2.	----	Postal track report in respect of Annexure-A1 sale notice sent to the 1^st applicant.	Annexure-A2
3.	29.01.2025	True copy of the sale notice issued by the defendant bank for the e-auction sale scheduled on20.02.2025.	Annexure-A3
4.	----	Postal track report in respect of Annexure-A3 sale notice sent to the 1^st applicant.	Annexure-A4
5.	06.09.2016	True copy of the meeting minutes of the District Level Purchase Committee (DLPC) chaired by the District Collector, Ernakulam.	Annexure-A5
6.	06.09.2016	True English translation of Annexure- A5 document.	Annexure- A5(a)
7.	21.02.2025	True copy of the sale notice issued by the defendant bank.	Annexure-A6
8.	24.07.2025	True copy of the sale notice issued by the defendant bank.	Annexure-A7
9.	16.09.2025	True copy of the sale notice issued by the defendant bank.	Annexure-A8

¶80

List of documents filed by the defendants 1 & 2 along with the written statement

¶81

Sl.	Date	Particulars
No.
1.	04.01.2025	True copy ofsalenotice	Annexure-R1
2.	07.01.2025	True copy of paper publication in The New Indian ExpressDaily	Annexure- R2
3.	07.01.2025	True copy of paper publication in Mangalam Daily	Annexure- R3
4.	07.01.2025	Postal receipt	Annexure- R4
5.	07.01.2025	Photograph of Affixture	Annexure- R5

¶82

Page 11 of 14

¶83

SA No.129 of 2025

¶84

6.	29.01.2025	True copy of sale notice	Annexure- R6
7.	02.02.2025	True copy of paper publication in The SundayExpressDaily	Annexure- R7
8.	01.02.2025	True copy of paper publication in Mangalam Daily	Annexure- R8
9.	01.02.2025	Postal Receipt	Annexure- R9
10.	03.02.2025	Photograph of Affixture	Annexure-R10
11.	22.01.2025	Valuation Report	Annexure-R11
12.	14.03.2025	Sale Certificate	Annexure-R12
13.	21.02.2025	True copy ofsalenotice	Annexure-R13
14.	22.02.2025	True copy of paper publication in The New Indian ExpressDaily	Annexure-R14
15.	22.02.2025	True copy of paper publication in Mangalam Daily	Annexure-R15
16.	21.02.2025	Postal receipt	Annexure-R16
17.	21.02.2025	Postal Acknowledgment Cards	Annexure-R17
18.	25.02.2025	Photographof Affixture ofSaleNotice	Annexure-R18
19.	21.02.2025	True copyofpostal track records	Annexure-R19
20.	02.10.2024	Valuation Report	Annexure-R20
21.	17.09.2024	Valuation Report	Annexure-R21
22.	24.07.2025	True copy of sale notice	Annexure-R22 (a)and R22(b)
23.	25.07.2025	True copy of postal receipts	Annexure-R23 (a), R23(b), R23(c)
24.	30.07.2025	True copy of postal acknowledgment	Annexure- R24, 24 (a), 24 (b)
25.	26.07.2025	True copy of paper publication in Mangalam Daily	Annexure-R25
26.	26.07.2025	True copy of paper publication in The New Indian Express Daily	Annexure-R26
27.	26.07.2025	Photographof Affixture ofSale	Annexure-R27
28.	26.07.2025	Photograph of Affixture of Sale	Annexure-R28
29.	16.09.2025	True copy ofsalenotice	Annexure-R29
30.	19.09.2025	True copy of postal receipts	Annexure- R30, R30 (a), R30 (b), R30 (c),R30 (d)
31.	23.09.2025 &	True copy of postal acknowledgment receipt, postal tracking and returned	Annexure- R31, R31(a),
	25.09.2025	ADCards	R31(b),R31(c),

¶85

Page 12 of 14

¶86

SA No.129 of 2025

¶87

			R31 (d)
32.	24.09.2025	Original paper publication in Mangalam Daily (Thrissur&Kochiedition)	Annexure-R32
33.	24.09.2025	Original paper publication in The New Indian Express Daily (Thrissur & Kochi edition)	Annexure-R33
34.	29.09.2025	Photographof Affixture ofSaleNotice	Annexure-R34
35.	17.09.2024	True copy of Valuation Report	Annexure-R35
36.	10.02.2017	Sale Notice	Annexure-R36
37.	10.02.2017	Sale Notice	Annexure-R37
38.	10.02.2017	Sale Notice	Annexure-R38
39.	10.02.2017	SaleNotice	Annexure-R39
40.	10.02.2017	SaleNotice	Annexure-R40
41.	13.02.2017	Postal Acknowledgment Card	Annexure-R41
42.	13.02.2017	Postal Acknowledgment Card	Annexure-R42
43.	14.02.2017	Postal Acknowledgment Card	Annexure-R43
44.	14.02.2017	Postal Acknowledgment Card	Annexure-R44
45.	23.02.2017	Postal Acknowledgment Card	Annexure-R45
46.	03.02.2017	Paper Publication(English)	Annexure-R46
47.	03.02.2017	Paper Publication (Malayalam)	Annexure-R47
48.	02.05.2024	SaleNotice	Annexure-R48
49.	02.05.2024	Paper Publication (Malayalam)	Annexure- R48(a)
50.	02.05.2024	Paper Publication (English)	Annexure- R48(b)
51.	30.09.2024	Sale Notice	Annexure-R49
52.	30.09.2024	Paper publication Malayalam	Annexure- R49(a)
53.	30.09.2024	Paper publication English	Annexure- R49(b)
54.	05.12.2024	Sale notice	Annexure-R50
55.	05.12.2024	Paper publication Malayalam	Annexure- R50(a)
56.	05.12.2024	Paper publication English	Annexure- R50(b)
57.	05.06.2024	Postal Acknowledgement card	Annexure-R51
58.	07.10.2024	Postal Acknowledgement card	Annexure-R52
59.	16.12.2024	Postal Acknowledgement card	Annexure-R53
60.	25.03.2023	Gazette publication fair value	Annexure-R54
61.	14.07.2025	Lanx tax paid receipt along with English translation.	Annexure-R55

¶88

Page 13 of 14

¶89

SA No.129 of 2025

¶90

List of documents filed by the 3^rd defendant along with the written statement

¶91

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	12.06.2025	True copy of the sale certificate No.1378/2026	Annexure- D3(1)
2.	14.07.2025	True copy of the land tax paid receipt.	Annexure- D3(2)
3.	---	True English translation of Anx.D3(2)	Annexure- D3(2) (a)

(Su. WILLYAHM)

PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 14 of 14

Sheriff P B v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheriff P B v. Bank of Baroda

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

Hdfc Bank versus Ranjit Singh

Huzer Akhtar versus Axis Bank

Bank of Baroda versus Thulasidas

Suresh Chowdhury and Another versus Aadhar Housing Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus J v Chowda Reddy

Punjab and Sind Bank versus M/S Jassar Alloys