Dismissed

Sakeena v. Cherpalcheri Cooperative Urban Bank

DRT20 Feb 2026SA/153/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitization Application, the Applicant sought to set aside a Demand Notice and an Advocate Commissioner's notice regarding physical possession of secured property. The court dismissed the application, finding the Applicant failed to prove she sent any objection. Since no objection was received, the statutory requirement to communicate reasons for non-acceptance was not violated, and the

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs.

Sakeena versus Cherpalcheri Cooperative Urban Bank — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 20^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 153 of 2023

¶6

Between

¶7

Sakeena, W/o. P.K. Abdul Salam, Noor Mahal, Cherpulassery, Ottapalam Taluk – 679 503.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

Cherpalcheri Co-operative Bank Ltd. Head Office, Main Road,

¶11

Cherpalcheri, Palakkad 679 503,

¶12

Rep. by the Authorized Officer (General Manager.)

¶13

The Manager,

¶14

Cherpalcheri Co-operative Bank Ltd. Head Office, Main Road,

¶15

Cherpalcheri, Palakkad 679 503.

¶16

--- Defendants

¶17

This Securitization Application coming on 08.01.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Sajan Varghese, Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. Sajeev Kumar, Advocate 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:

¶18

SA No.153 of 2023

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Securitisation Application was filed on 23.03.2023 seeking to set aside Annexure-A2 Demand Notice and Annexure-A3 Advocate Commissioner’s notice.

¶21

The applicant availed credit facility from the 2nd defendant bank in the year 2016. She has created equitable mortgage over her immovable property admeasuring 2.96 Ares comprised in Re. Sy. No.441/3 in Cherpalcheri Village, Ottappalam Taluk by deposit of title deeds with the 2nd defendant as the collateral security for the availment of the aforesaid credit facility. Due to default in repayment of the outstanding amount, the loan account of the applicant came to be classified as Non-performing Asset on 07.07.2000. Annexure-A2 demand notice dated 17.10.2022 was issued to the applicant calling upon her to repay the outstanding loan due within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice. The applicant neither sent any objection/representation to the demand notice nor did she clear off her liability due to the 2nd defendant bank.

¶22

Since the applicant failed to respond to the terms of the demand notice, the defendants approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad and filed Annexure-A5 petition and A6 affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Annexure-A7 Order dated 07.01.2023 came to be passed in MC No.11/2023 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure-A3 notice dated 13.01.2023 to the applicant informing her that she would take physical possession of the secured asset on 28.01.2023. The applicant having aggrieved against the above measures, filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

¶23

The counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that though the applicant sent objection to the demand notice, the defendants failed to send any reply and that there was no negligence on her part in repaying the loan in time and that therefore, Annexure-A7 order and Annexure-A3 notice are liable to be set aside.

¶24

The counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that since the applicant defaulted in repayment of the loan due her loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset and the applicant did not send any objection/representation to the demand notice and that the statutory requirements contemplated under provisions of Sec.14(1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 was complied with by the defendants and that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad passed order only after having satisfied with the contents of Annexure-A 6 affidavit and that therefore, SA may be dismissed with cost to the defendants.

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

SA No.153 of 2023

¶27

The applicant has not produced any proof to prove her contention that she sent objection to Annexure-A2 demand notice. Hence the contention of the defendants that objection was not sent to the demand notice has to be accepted as correct.

¶28

The only contention raised by the applicant in the SA is that Clause (vii) to the first proviso of Sec.14(1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 was not complied with by the defendants. The above Clause (vii) stipulates that the secured creditor shall state in the affidavit if any objection or representation to the demand notice was received from the borrower and whether it was considered by the secured creditor and the reasons for non acceptance of such objection or representation had been communicated to the borrower. As already observed by this Tribunal, no objection/representation was sent by the applicant to the demand notice. Therefore, it is evident that the above clause (vii) has not been violated by the defendants.

¶29

Apart from the aforesaid contention, the applicant has not raised any other contentions in the SA with regard to Annexure-A6 affidavit and Annexure-A7 order. However, a perusal of Annexure-A6 affidavit shows that all the statutory requirement contemplated under Clauses (i) to (ix) to the proviso of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. A perusal of Annexure-A7 order the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad 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 asset. This Tribunal does not find any infirmity or procedural irregularity in the above order.

¶30

The applicant has failed to prove her 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.

¶31

Resultantly, S.A No.153/2023 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20^th day of February, 2026.

¶33

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 3 of 4

SA No.153 of 2023

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

¶38

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	---	True copy of the letter issued by the 2^nd defendant.	Annexure-A1
2.	17.10.2022	True copy of the Demand Notice.	Annexure-A2
3.	13.01.2023	True copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner	Annexure-A3
4.	06.03.2023	True copy of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.2889/2023 on the file of the Hon'ble HighCourt of Kerala.	Annexure-A4
5.	27.12.2022	True copy of MC No.11/2023 on the file ofChiefJudicial MagistratePalakkad.	Annexure-A5
6.	27.12.2022	True copy of the affidavit MC No.11/2023 on the file of Chief Judicial MagistratePalakkad.	Annexure-A6
7.	07.01.2023	True copy of the order in MC No.11/2023 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Palakkad.	Annexure-A7

¶39

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶40

Mj/

¶41

Page 4 of 4

Sakeena v. Cherpalcheri Cooperative Urban Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakeena v. Cherpalcheri Cooperative Urban 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

Thanooja Kappil versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus M/s Singla Trading Company

Icici Bank Limited versus Satwant Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Amit Doda

Punjab National Bank versus Sampuran Singh

Ms Balya Cements Pvt. Ltd. versus Canara Bank