Dismissed

M/S Linsa Medicals v. State Bank of India

DRT29 Apr 2026SA/193/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a securitization application challenging a bank's recovery proceedings. The court rejected claims that the demand notice was improperly served, interest was excessive, or the death of a guarantor invalidated the process, relying on precedents regarding the sufficiency of notices and non-abatement of proceedings due to death.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application No.193/2025 was dismissed without costs.

M/S Linsa Medicals versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: SRI. SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Dated this the 29^th day of April, 2026.

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.193/2025

¶5

Between

¶6

M/s.Linsa Medicals, Palayam Junction, Nedumangadu P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, Pin – 695 541, represented by Proprietor Santhosh Kumar T.R.

¶7

Santhosh Kumar T.R., Aged 60 years, S/o.Ramakrishnan Nair, 12/223, Sreeramakrishna, Palace View, Nedumangadu P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, Pin - 695 541. …Applicants..

¶8

And

¶9

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, LMS Compound, Opp: Museum West Gate, Vikas Bhavan P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, Pin - 695 033,

¶10

represented by Authorized Officer. …Defendant

¶11

This Securitization Application having been heard on

¶12

30.03.2026 in the presence of Advocate Mr.Jishnu A. representing

¶13

SA 193/2025

¶14

¶15

advocate Mr.Rajeesh K.G. for the applicants and Advocate Tom K. Thomas for the defendant and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶16

F I N A L O R D E R

¶17

Challenging the securitization proceeding initiated by the defendant under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’), the applicants/borrowers have filed this SA under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act seeking relief to set aside the securitization proceeding, including the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner.

¶18

Brief facts of the case :

¶19

2.1. The second applicant, a medical shop owner, availed cash credit facility from the defendant. His mother stood as the guarantor for the said loan facilities. Due to default in repayment, the defendant initiated SARFAESI proceeding against the applicants.

¶20

2.2. In the SA, the applicants claimed that the security interest is not registered in the CERSAI portal which renders the Securitization proceeding as illegal. Further it is contended that the possession notice was not duly served on the applicants and the

¶21

SA 193/2025

¶22

¶23

secured asset is not properly described in the demand notice and the possession notice. The applicants approached the defendant to give some breathing time to regularize the loan but no positive response was received from the defendant.

¶24

2.3. It is also claimed that the possession notice issued u/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act dated 06.12.2024 was not duly served, nor the statutory measures are properly complied.

¶25

2.4 The defendant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram by filing M.C. No.20/25 u/s.14 of the SARFAESI Act to take physical possession of the secured asset. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order in appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the secured asset. The applicants challenged the proceeding before this Tribunal with a prayer to set aside the securitization proceeding including the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner.

¶26

The defendant has filed written statement denying the averments in the SA and claimed inter alia that the applicants have no valid ground in challenging the securitization proceeding. All the statutory measures are duly complied. The security interest is also registered in the CERSAI Portal. The demand notice and possession notice were also duly served as per the statutory requirement. The

¶27

SA 193/2025

¶28

¶29

applicants have never disputed the claim raised in the demand notice. In absence of any illegality, the applicants are not entitled to get any relief and the SA may be dismissed.

¶30

From the respective case of the applicants and defendant, the following points are emerged for adjudication in this case:

¶31

(i) Whether the securitization proceeding initiated by the defendant suffer from any illegality or irregularity to intervene with the same?

¶32

(ii) Whether the applicants are entitled to get any relief in this proceeding?

¶33

FINDINGS:

¶34

Point No.(i) and (ii):-

¶35

Admittedly applicant No.2, being the sole proprietor of applicant No.1 medical shop, availed various credit facilities from the defendant by mortgaging the property of his mother. Due to default in repayment, the securitization proceeding was initiated.

¶36

The learned counsel for the applicants contended that the demand notice was not duly served on the applicants. The building in existence over the subject matter property is not shown in the demand notice which renders it illegal. It is also submitted that the security interest is not registered in the CERSAI Portal. In absence of the same, securitization proceeding is not maintainable.

¶37

SA 193/2025

¶38

¶39

The defendant has charged exorbitant interest in the loan account, which the applicants are not liable to pay. Lastly, it is contended that mother of the 2^nd applicant, guarantor to this loan transaction expired and other LRs are not impleaded as parties to the proceeding initiated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The order was passed against a dead person and hence the same cannot be enforced.

¶40

Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant would contend that the demand notice was duly served on the applicants and he has not raised any question regarding excessive charge of interest in the loan account. In absence of the same, the applicants cannot challenge the demand in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala reported in 2022 (3) KLT 645 in the case of AGP City Gas Private Limited v. M/s.Lynx Properties & Developers & others . It is also contended that the security interest is duly registered in the CERSAI Portal and the relevant certificate is produced. No material illegality in issuing the possession notice and the proceeding initiated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate are established by the applicant. Death of his mother was not informed by the applicant to the defendant at any point of time. Also in this SA the same is not raised. For the first

¶41

SA 193/2025

¶42

¶43

time, the applicant has raised the death of his mother during argument stage. So also, the applicant has not furnished details of the other LRs of the deceased. Since the demand notice was served on the guarantor, there is no necessity to issue any other notice to the LRs, if any, of the guarantor. Hence the applicants have no valid case and the SA may be dismissed.

¶44

On careful consideration of the submissions of both sides it is noticed that the demand notice was produced by the applicant as Annexure-A1 in this case. In the SA it is not specifically claimed non-service of demand notice on him and the guarantor. In absence of such contention in the pleading, now the counsel for the applicants cannot raise the same. The defendant has also produced the CERSAI registration certificate including paper publication and affixture of the possession notice u/s.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The applicants have not raised any illegality in the proceeding initiated before the CJM. It appears that the learned CJM passed an order in M.C. No.20/2025 by application of mind to the documents and materials placed on record. Hence interference with such order is not warranted in this proceeding.

¶45

The applicants, having not raised any dispute the claim advanced in the demand notice by filing objection u/s.13(3-A) of

¶46

SA 193/2025

¶47

¶48

the SARFAESI Act, now he cannot turn around and claim that the interest charged is excessive.

¶49

In a judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala reported in 2022 (3) KLT 645 in the case of AGP City Gas Private Limited v. M/s.Lynx Properties & Developers &

¶50

others in which it is held as follows:

¶51

“21. Once the notice of demand is served, the mandate of the Act, as evident from section 13(3)-A, is the availability of an opportunity to the borrower to raise any objection against the notice issued. This statutory notice enables the borrower to raise an objection on any of the grounds available to him, including the objection regarding the quantum specified in the demand notice.

¶52

22. In the instant case, admittedly no objection was raised by the borrower or guarantor on the quantum specified in the demand notice issued under section 13(2) of the Act. Therefore, the opportunity available to the borrower as well as the guarantor, to object to the quantum mentioned in the demand notice was not availed by them. Hence, they cannot thereafter, turn around and question the quantum mentioned in the demand notice to contend that the notice is bad in law. ……”

¶53

In view of this ratio, the applicants have no valid ground to dispute

¶54

the demand notice and the contention is not acceptable.

¶55

In fact, in the SA, the applicants have not raised any issue regarding the death of his mother. Even the contention is accepted as true, there is no necessity on the part of the secured creditor to start fresh securitization proceeding against other LRs, if any, of the deceased guarantor.

¶56

SA 193/2025

¶57

¶58

In a Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, decided in WA No.1754/2017 dated 07.08.2019 in the case of

¶59

The Authorised Officer, Tamilnad Merchantile Bank Limited

¶60

v. Devi Prasad wherein at paragraph 14 it is held as follows:-

¶61

”14……………Question is whether the death of the original borrower occurred at the stage of the proceedings will abate the entire steps taken. Or in other words, whether the secured creditor is at an obligation to initiate fresh steps, right from issuing notice under sub-section (2) of Section 13. Considering the object, nature and scheme of the above said provisions of the SARFAESI Act, we can only answer the above question in the negative.”

¶62

So also, in another Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala

¶63

passed in WP(C) No.33994/2025 dated 18.11.2025 in the case

¶64

of Abhijith B. Vs. Bank of Maharashtra and Others, by referring

¶65

the earlier judgment, held that there is no necessity of issuing 2^nd round of notice to the legal heirs of the deceased, who was duly served the demand notice and the possession notice. In view of the ratio, there is no necessity to issue any fresh notice to the LRs of the deceased guarantor. Mere showing her name in the application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot be treated as null and void particularly when the applicant, being the LR of the deceased, impleaded in such proceeding. However, before proceeding further in the proceeding under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the defendant can delete the name of the deceased from the record by filing a

¶66

SA 193/2025

¶67

¶68

formal application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The contention on this aspect of the learned counsel for the applicants has no force and the same is not acceptable. The applicants, having failed to establish any illegality or irregularity in the securitization proceeding, he is not entitled to get any relief and hence both the points are answered against the applicants.

¶69

Hence it is ordered:-

¶70

ORDER

¶71

In view of the foregoing reasons the SA, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.

¶72

(Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 29^th day of April, 2026).

¶73

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶74

Documents on the part of the applicants

¶75

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-A1	06.05.2024	True copy of the Sec.13(2) notice.
Annexure-A2	06.12.2024	True copy of the Sec.13(4) issued by defendant
Annexure-A3	04.01.2025	True copy of the affidavit filed by defendant in M.C.No.20 of 2025.
Annexure-A4	22.01.2025	True copy of the order issued by Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram.
Annexure-A5	27.02.2025	True copy of the notice issued by the advocate commissioner.
Annexure-A6	03.03.2021	True copy of the building tax receipts issued by Nedumangadu Municipality to the applicants.
Annexure- A6(a)	-	True English translation of Annexure A6
D	ocuments on	the part of the defendant

¶76

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-B1	-	True copy of the CERSAI Registration certificate issued by the Central Registry in respect of the secured asset.
Annexure-B2	-	True copy of the photograph showing the affixture of Annexure A2 notice on the secured asset.
Annexure B3	07.12.2024	True copy of newspaper publication published in Deepika.
Annexure B4	07.12.2024	True copy of newspaper publication published in Businessline.

¶77

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶78

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶79

PRESENT: SRI. SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶80

Dated the 29^th day of April, 2026.

¶81

SA No.193/2025

¶82

Between

¶83

M/s.Linsa Medicals, Palayam Junction, Nedumangadu P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, Pin – 695 541, represented by Proprietor ` Santhosh Kumar T.R. and Anr. …Applicants And

¶84

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, LMS Compound, Opp: Museum West Gate, Vikas Bhavan P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, Pin - 695 033, represented by Authorized officer. …Defendant

¶85

F I N A L O R D E R

M/S Linsa Medicals v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Linsa Medicals v. State Bank of India

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

Uco Bank versus Manpreet Kumar

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus M/S Prasad Broom Stick Co. and Ors.

State Bank of India versus Muni Royal

Nawal Singh Verma versus Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Ms Shiddi Sai Traders Prop Sujata Ghatraj and Anr.

State Bank of India versus M/S Bijeshwar Enterprises