Dismissed

Suma Pradeep v. Federal Bank

DRT16 Sept 2026SA/169/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitization Application, the Applicant challenged an order appointing an Advocate Commissioner for taking possession of secured assets. The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the bank strictly complied with statutory requirements under the SARFAESI Act. Evidence established proper service of demand and possession notices, alongside registration of the security interest, rendering the proceedings legal.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application (SA No. 169 of 2024) was dismissed with no costs awarded.

Suma Pradeep versus Federal Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 169 of 2024

¶6

Between

¶7

Suma Pradeep, W/o Pradeep A.N, Anchuthaikkal House, Kaitharam P.O, Kothakulam, Ezhikkara, Paravur Taluk, Ernakulam- 683 519

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

The Federal Bank Ltd, Represented by its Authorized Officer, Edavanakad Branch, Illathupadi, Ernakulam- 682 502

¶11

--- Defendant

¶12

This Securitization Application coming on 16.06.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Advocate Mr. Akhil, representing the counsel for the applicant and Advocate Mr. Akshay, the representing counsel for the defendant and upon hearing the arguments of both sides’ counsels and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Securitisation Application was filed on 04.03.2024 seeking to quash Annexure-5 order passed in MC No. 254/2023 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam and to award cost of this proceedings to the applicants.

¶15

SA No.169 of 2024

¶16

The applicant and her husband availed housing loan of Rs. 25,26,223/- and term loan of Rs. 6,23,700/- from the defendant bank upon creation of equitable mortgage over the immovable property comprised in survey No. 225/7-24, Paravur Village by deposit of title deed with defendant bank.

¶17

Due to default in repayment of outstanding loan due, the loan account of the applicant came to be classified as Non-Performing Asset. Annexure-A2 demand notice dated 26.02.2022 was served to the applicant and her husband calling upon them to repay the outstanding loan due along with accrued interest within the period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The applicant and her husband neither sent any objection / representation to the demand notice nor did they clear off their liability due to the defendant bank.

¶18

Therefore, the defendant approached the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam and filed Annexure-A6 application and affidavit in MC No. 254/2023 u/S. SARFAESI Act 2002. Annexure-A5 order was passed on 12.02.2024 appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure-A3 notice dated 02.01.2024 to the applicant and her husband informing them that she would take physical possession of the secured asset on 02.01.2024. The applicant having aggrieved against the aforesaid measures, has filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

¶19

The counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the demand notice was not served to her and her husband and that their request to regularize the loan account was not considered by the defendant bank and that the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act 2002, are illegal and that Security Interest was not registered with the Central Registry and that without issuing possession notice u/S. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act 2002, the defendant invoked the jurisdiction u/S. 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and that Annexure-A5 order is liable to be set aside and therefore SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶20

The counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that since the applicant and her husband defaulted repayment of outstanding due, the loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset as per the RBI guidelines and that demand notice sent to the address at Edavanakad was received by the applicant and her husband and that the demand notice sent to the address at Kothakulam, Ernakulam was returned unserved and that they did not send any objection/ representation to the demand notice and that Annexure-B2 possession notice was issued and that it was

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

SA No.169 of 2024

¶23

received by the petitioner and her husband and that the possession notice was published and affixed and that security interest has been registered with the central registry and that Annexure-A6 application and affidavit were filed in compliance with the requirements of the 1st proviso to S. 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and that the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala passed in Annexure-A4 judgment to remit the outstanding amount in 6 instalments was not complied with and that therefore SA may be dismissed with costs to the defendants.

¶24

Annexure-B1(a) copies of postal receipts and acknowledgement cards and returned postal cover produced by the defendant evidences the service of demand notice on the petitioner and her husband. Admittedly, they did not send any objection/ representation to the demand notice. The defendant has produced Annexure- B2(a) , copies of acknowledgement cards, Annexure-B2(b) copies of paper publication Annexure-B2(c) and copy of photograph Annexure-B2(d) in order to prove his contention that Annexure-B2 possession notice was served to the applicant and her husband and that it was affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured asset and it was published in Deepika Newspaper edition dated 04.02.2021 and New Indian Express Edition on 04.02.2021. Hence the contention of the applicant possession notice was not issued is absolutely incorrect.

¶25

A perusal of Annexure-A6 affidavit shows that all the statutory requirements stipulated under Clauses (i) to (ix) to the first proviso of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been complied with by the defendant. A perusal of Annexure-A5 order shows that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam after having perused the contents of the affidavit and documents filed in support of the affidavit and having satisfied over the same passed order appoint Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. This Tribunal does not find any illegality in Annexure-A5 order.

¶26

The applicant has failed to prove her case so as to get the relief sought for in the SA.

¶27

In the foregoing reasons, this SA 169/2024 stands dismissed. No costs.

¶28

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and

¶29

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16^st day of September, 2026.

¶30

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Rn/

Page 3 of 5

SA No.169 of 2024

Schedule of the Properties

¶35

District : Ernakulam Taluk : Paravur Village : Paravur Sy.No. : old Sy.No. 225/7 Extent : 2.02 ½ Ares

¶36

Description of Property

¶37

All that part and parcel of the property having an extent of 2.02 ½ Ares of land along with two stories residential building and all improvements thereon comprised in old Sy.No. 225/7 of Paravur Village, Paravur Taluk, Ernakulam District in the name of Mr. Suma Pradeep as per Registered Sale Deed No. 1592/2017 of SRO Paravur.

¶38

Boundaries

¶39

North : Property of Asha Vichithran East : Pathway South : Pathway West : Panchayath Road

¶40

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

¶41

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	12.10.2021	True copy of the discharge summary issued to applicant’s son by Aster Medi city.	Annexure-A1
2.	26.02.2020	True copy of the 13(2) notice.	Annexure-A2
3.	02.01.2024	True copy of notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner.	Annexure-A3
4.	05.01.2024	A true copy of the judgment in WPC No. 418/2024 of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala.	Annexure-A4
5.	12.02.2024	True copy of the order in C.M.P. No. 1617/2024 in MC No. 254/2023 on the files of Additional Chief Judicial	Annexure-A5
		Magistrate Court ( for the trial of criminal cases against sitting and

¶42

Page 4 of 5

¶43

SA No.169 of 2024

¶44

		former MPs/MLAs of the State) Ernakulam.
6.	07.02.2023	True copy of the petition filed by the defendant as MC 254/2023 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court ( for the trial of criminal cases against sitting and former MPs/MLAs of the State)Ernakulam.	Annexure-A6

¶45

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

¶46

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	26.02.2020	True copy of the demand notice	Annexure-B1
2.	03.03.2020	True copy of postal receipts , acknowledgement cards and returned postal cover in respect of demand notice.	Annexure- B1(a)
3.	01.02.2021	True copy ofthe possession notice.	Annexure-B2
4.	----	True copy of the acknowledged possession notice.	Annexure- B2(a)
5	-----	True copies of the acknowledgement cards/ returned postal cover in respect of thepossession notice.	Annexure- B2(b)
6	04.02.2021	True copy of paper publication published in the Deepika newspaper and the New Indian Express newspaper, Ernakulamedition.	Annexure-B2©
7	--	True copy of photographs evidencing affixture.	Annexure- B2(d)

¶47

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶48

Rn/

¶49

Page 5 of 5

Suma Pradeep v. Federal Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suma Pradeep 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

Uco Bank versus Dilip

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Ibrahim Fish Traders Traders and Ors.

State Bank of India versus Gaurav Kumar and Ors.

Canara Bank versus Ninge Gowda

Thadiyampurath Hassan versus Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd. 1758

Hdfc Bank versus subair