Dismissed

Malayalam Vehicles India Pvt. Ltd. v. Tata Capital Limited

DRT4 Sept 2026SA/199/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed a Securitisation Application challenging the classification of loan accounts as NPAs, the issuance of demand and possession notices, and the validity of possession proceedings under the SARFAESI Act in light of pending IBC proceedings against the corporate debtor only.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application (SA No. 199/2025) stands dismissed; no costs awarded.

Malayalam Vehicles India Pvt. Ltd. versus Tata Capital… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No.199 of 2025

¶2

Fair Order

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

DATED THIS 04^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶5

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

¶6

S.A No.199 of 2025

¶7

Between

¶8

Malayalam Vehicles India Pvt.Ltd, C.C. No. 52/3171, 52/3172, First Floor, Sharion Tower, Opp. Salafi Masjid, Vyttila, Ernakulam- 682 019, Rep.by its Director Rajwanth Ben

¶9

Rajwanth Ben, S/o Churchin Ben, Flat No. RSB-101, 10^th Floor, Block B, DLF Riverside, Bay Biew Road, Vyttila, Ernakulam- 682 019.

¶10

M/s. Katrala Products Pvt Ltd, C.C. No. 52/3171, 52/3172, First Floor, Sharion Tower, Opp. Salafi Masjid, Vyttila, Ernakulam- 682 019, Rep.by its Director Rajwanth Ben

¶11

--- Applicants

¶12

And

¶13

TATA Capital Limited, Ground Floor, Jain Tower II,

¶14

1 | P a g e 1 5

¶15

SA No.199 of 2025

¶16

NH-17 Near Lulu Mall, Edappally, Ernakulam, Kochi- 682 024, Rep.by its Manager.

¶17

Authorized Officer, TATA Capital Limited, No.51/2267, 3^rd Floor, Grand Plaza, Fort Road, Kannur-670 001

¶18

--- Defendants

¶19

This Securitization Application coming on 22.12.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Shrihari, Counsel for the Applicants and Mr. Renjith R, Counsel 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:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Securitisation Application was filed on 17.06.2025 praying to declare the classifications of loan accounts as NonPerforming Asset is against the Master Circular- Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification issued by the RBI and that no valid security interest has been registered with the Central Registry and Annexure-A2 demand notice and Annexure-A7 possession notice were issued in violation of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Rules and NCLP proceedings and to set aside Annexure-A2 demand notice and Annexure-A7 possession notice and to declare the measures initiated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery in CMP No. 1639/2025 is against the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the provisions of IBC and to set aside Annexure-A8 notice and Annexure-A16 application, Annexure-A17 affidavit and Annexure-A19 order passed in CMP No. 1639/2025.

¶22

The applicants availed financial facility to the tune of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- as per sanction letter Annexure-B1 and term loan facility to the tune of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- as per Annexure-B3 sanction letter from the 1st defendant finance company in the year 2023 upon creation of equitable mortgage over the 3rd defendant’s immovable properties by deposit of title deed with 1st defendant finance company. Due to default, the loan accounts of applicants came to be classified as Non-Performing Asset on 26.09.2024. Annexure-A2 demand notice was issued to the applicants calling upon them to repay the outstanding amount due along with accrued interest and

¶23

2 | P a g e 1 5

¶24

SA No.199 of 2025

¶25

other charges within the period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the demand notice. The applicants sent Annexure-A3 objection to the 2nd defendant. Annexure-A4 reply was sent by the 2nd defendant to the applicants.

¶26

Thereafter, Annexure-A7 possession notice dated 23.01.2025 was issued for symbolically taking possession of the secured asset. Subsequently, the defendants approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery and filed Annexure-A16 application and Annexure-A17 affidavit. Annexure-A19 order came to be passed in CMP No.1639/2025 appointing Advocate Commissioner to taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure-A8 notice to the applicants informing them that she would take physical possession of the secured asset after 12.06.2025. The applicants having aggrieved against the aforesaid measures have filed this SA seeking for the relief stated supra.

¶27

The availment of credit facility to the tune of Rs.7,00,00,000/- and term loan to the tune of Rs.5,00,00,000/crores from the 1st defendant finance company is admitted by the applicants. But the applicants have contented in the SA that no valid security interest has been created. A perusal of Ext.B5 which is memorandum of entry of deposit of title deeds executed by M/s. Katrala Products Pvt.Ltd which is the 3rd applicant herein shows that security interest has been created in respect of the immovable property of the 3rd applicant by deposit of title deed in favour of the 1st defendant company on 27.12.2023. In order to prove the deposit of title deed, sale deed No. 3285/2023 has been produced by the defendants as Ext.B6. Hence, it is established that valid security interest in respect of the immovable properties belonging to the 3rd applicant has been created as a collateral security for the availment of the aforesaid credit facility.

¶28

The applicants have conveniently omitted to aver in the SA as to whether they were prompt in the repayment of the outstanding loan due or as to whether they defaulted in repayment of the outstanding loan due. However, the defendants have specifically averred in the written statement that the loan accounts of the 1st applicant became Non-Performing Asset on 26.09.2024.

¶29

The counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that without considering the incipient stress and without adhering to invoke the notification O(E) 1432 issued by the Government of India u/s 9 of the MSMED Act and RBI circular for framework for revival and rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, the 2nd defendant classified the loan accounts as Non-Performing Asset and issued the demand notice dated 15.11.2024.

¶30

3 | P a g e 1 5

¶31

SA No.199 of 2025

¶32

Per contra, the counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Pro Knits (M) Vs. Board of Directors of Canara Bank [2024 KHC 6408] that an MSME borrower is obliged to place on record authenticated and verifiable material establishing on both MSME status and onset of financial stress and that such material must precede the classification of the account as an Non-Performing Asset and that in the present case, the applicant produced no material to substantiate that 1st applicant is an MSME or that it was undergoing financial stress, prior to the classification as Non-Performing Asset on 26.09.2024.

¶33

In Pro Knits (M) Vs. Board of Directors of Canara Bank [2024 KHC 6408] cited by the counsel appearing for the defendants, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held, as per the provisions of Sec.9 of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, notification dated 29.05.2015 issued by the Central Government, which contains the instructions for the framework for revival and rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises which has statutory force is mandatory and that the said notification and master directions are binding to all banking companies. Now the issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the 1^st applicant has been duly registered under Sec.9 of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, in order to get the said benefit. It is pertinent to mention herein that even in the afore cited judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held as follows:

¶34

“ Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – S.9 – It would be incumbent on the part of concerned MSME to produce authenticated and verifiable documents/ material for substantiating its claim of being MSEM, before its account is classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) – Once account is classified as NPA, Banks i.e. secured creditors would be entitled to take the recourse to Chap.3 of SARFAESI Act for the enforcement of security interest.”

¶35

In the present case at hand, no material has been produced by the applicants in order to show that the 1^st applicant has been registered as stated above in order to get the said benefit. There is also no specific plea in this regard in the SA. Hence, it is evident that since the 1^st applicant has not been registered as MSME, the applicants are not entitled to get the aforesaid benefit after classification of the loan account as Non-Performing Asset.

¶36

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held in Pro Knits (M) Vs. Board of Directors of Canara Bank [2024 KHC 6408] as follows:-

¶37

4 | P a g e 1 5

¶38

SA No.199 of 2025

¶39

Though while stressing that the terms of the FRAMEWORK need to be followed by the lending banks/ secured creditors before the account of an MSME is classified as NonPerforming Asset, this decision also lays stress on the obligation of the MSMEs by holding that “ it would be equally incumbent on the part of the MSMEs concerned to be vigilant enough to follow the process laid down under the said Framework, and bring to the notice of the Banks concerned, by producing authenticated and verifiable documents/ material to show its eligibility to get the benefit of the said Framework”. It was cautioned that “ if such an Enterprise allows the entire process for enforcement of security interest under the SARFAESI Act to be over, or it having challenged such action of the bank/ creditor concerned in the court of law/tribunal and having failed, such an Enterprise could not be permitted to misuse the process of law for thwarting the actions taken under the SARFAESI Act by raising the plea of being an MSME at a belated stage”.

¶40

11 . The Hon’ble Hon'ble High Court of Kerala after having referred to the above cited judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in its judgment dated 07.11.2024 delivered in W rit Appeal No. 1728/2024 ( P.K.Krishnakumar and Anotherr v. IndusInd bank and others has held as follows:-

¶41

“The Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, has laid down the position of law that if, at the stage of classification of the loan account, the borrower does not bring to the notice of the Bank that it is an MSME and allow the entire process to through, then it will be precluded from raising it at the belated stage. This dicta is very clear and is binding .”

¶42

Therefore, this Tribunal does not find any merit in the submission of the counsel for the applicants that without considering the incipient stress and without adhering to invoke the notification O(E) 1432 issued by the Government of India u/s 9 of the MSMED Act and RBI circular for framework for revival and rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, the 2nd defendant classified the loan accounts as Non-Performing Asset and issued the demand notice dated 15.11.2024.

¶43

This Tribunal finds force in the submission of the defendants that since the 1st defendant company being a non banking finance company (NBFC, Governed by the RBI under the RBI Act 1934 does not fall within the scope of MSME government framework circular, which are applicable only to the scheduled commercial bank.

¶44

5 | P a g e 1 5

¶45

SA No.199 of 2025

¶46

The counsel for the applicants submitted that AnnexureA2 demand notice is invalid and illegal, as it was issued in total infraction of S.13(3) of the Act and it does not contain the split up of the outstanding amount in each loan accounts and that the details of the amounts payable by the borrower and the interest payable for different period and also the details of the secured assets.

¶47

The rival submission of the defendants is that the fundamental object of issuing demand notice is to inform the defaulting borrowers of the classification of their loan accounts as Non-Performing Asset and to raise a statutory demand for repayment and that in the present case, the applicants after having received the demand notice issued Annexure-A3 objection/ representation and that the 2nd defendant after having considered the same sent Annexure-A4 reply to the applicants and that the requisite particulars with regard to details of the amount payable by the applicants and details of the secured asset has been furnished in the demand notice.

¶48

A perusal of the Annexure-A2 demand notice shows that the availment of the credit facility and default in repayment of the outstanding loan due and the reason for classification of the loan accounts as Non-Performing Asset and total outstanding as on 14.11.2024 and the details of the secured assets has been clearly stated. As rightly submitted by the counsel for the defendants, the object of issuance of demand notice is to inform the borrowers/ guarantors of the default of the outstanding loan due, and classification of loan account as Non-Performing Asset and to call upon them to repay the outstanding loan due within a particular period of time and to initiate measurers in case of default. Therefore, this Tribunal does not find any substance in the above submission of the counsel for the applicants.

¶49

It is pertinent to mention that in Annexure-A3 objection/representation, there is no specific averments that the demand notice does not contain the split up the outstanding amounts in each loan accounts. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled to raise the above said issue now. In any event, for the objection/ representation made by the applicants in Annexure-A3, suitable reply Annexure-A4 has been sent by the 2nd defendant. Hence, it is evident that the 2nd defendant has complied with the statutory requirements of provisions of S.13(3A) of SARFAESI Act 2002.

¶50

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that since the 1^st applicant filed application on 14.11.2024 u/s 10 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter referred to as “IBC”) r/w Rule 7 of the IBC before the NCLT, Kochi branch and obtained Annexure-A5 order dated 03.01.2025 and that in view of Annexure-A5 order, all further measures initiated under the SARFAESI Act 2002

¶51

6 | P a g e 1 5

¶52

SA No.199 of 2025

¶53

are invalid and that when an application is filed u/s 94 and 95 of IBC, an interim moratorium shall commence on the date of application and that when the application is admitted u/s 100 of the IBC, a moratorium shall commence in relation to all the debts. The NCLT also passed Annexure-A11 order appointing the interim resolution Personal (IRP) in the matter of the 1^st applicant company and also ordered that moratorium shall have effect from the date of order till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process or until NCLT approves resolution plan u/s 1 of Sec.31 of the Code or passes an order for liquidation of the corporate debtor u/s 13 of the Code as the case may be and therefore, all the SARFAESI measures are invalid. The applicants have filed true copy of the case status with respect to the above S.95 of the applications filed before the NCLT, Kochi bench as Annexure-A22 and Annexure-A23.

¶54

The counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that S.95 of IBC was filed against Rajwanth Ben (2nd applicant herein), and one Molly G in relation to the separate loan facility availed by the 1st applicant company based upon the guarantee agreement entered into between the 2nd applicant, Molly G and TATA Motors Finance Ltd and that the same has no connection with the loan facility extended by TATA Capital Ltd, which is the 1st defendant and that the above arguments of the counsel for the applicants is misplaced. He also argued that the assets of the company are distinct and separate from the assets of its shareholders and the company itself is a legal entity. In support of the above arguments, he cited the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶55

a. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. V. State of Bihar and Ors., (1964) 6 SCR 885 .

¶56

b . Bacha F Guzdar V. Commissioner of Income Tax (1995) 1 S.C.R. 876 & Bharat Hari Singhania and ORS v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (central and Ors AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 1355 .

¶57

c . M/s Electronic Corporation of India Ltd. V. Secretary, Revenue Department Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors (Civil Appeal No. 142 of 1983) .

¶58

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the aforesaid cases that the entity of corporation/company is entirely separate from that of its shareholders and that its assets of separate distinct from those of its members and that the shareholder does not own and cannot claim any portion of the property held by the company of in which he is a shareholder. Therefore, it is established that the initiation of IBC proceedings against the personal guarantor who is a shareholder of M/s. Katrala products Pvt. Ltd. which is the cooperate guarantor will not impede or invalidate the measurers initiated under

¶59

7 | P a g e 1 5

¶60

SA No.199 of 2025

¶61

the SARFAESI Act 2002 against the property of M/s. Katrala products Pvt. Ltd.

¶62

The counsel for the defendants relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in State Bank Of India V. Ramakrishnan & Another (2018) 17 SCC 394 argued that invocation of moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC is applicable only to the measures initiated against Malayalam Vehicles India Pvt. Ltd which is corporate debtor undergoing insolvency resolution and not the guarantor and that since M/s.Katrala products Pvt. Ltd which is the corporate guarantor is not under any insolvency proceedings and that no moratorium has been declared in respect of its assets, and that hence the measures initiated under the SARFAESI Act against the mortgaged assets of the corporate guarantor is valid and enforceable in law.

¶63

The counsel appearing for the applicants countered the above argument of the counsel for the defendants contenting that Section 96 of the IBC protects the 2nd applicant against any pending legal action or proceeding in respect of any debt during the interim moratorium period and that the above judgment relied on by the counsel for the defendants does not answer the aforesaid issue.

¶64

In State Bank of India Vs. V. Ramakrishnan & another (2018) 17 SCC 394 cited by the counsel for the defendants, the facts of the case in brief is as follows : “ An application was filed by Respondent No.2, the corporate debtor, under Section 10 of the Code on 20.05.2017 to initiate the corporate insolvency resolution process against itself. On 19.06.2017, this petition filed under Section 10 was admitted, followed by the moratorium that is imposed statutorily by Section 14 of the Code. While the said proceedings were pending, an interim application was filed by Respondent No.1 as personal guarantor to the corporate debtor, in which Respondent No.1 took up the plea that Section 14 of the Code would apply to the personal guarantor as well, as a result of which proceedings against the personal guarantor and his property would have to be stayed. The National Company Law Tribunal, by its order dated 18.09.2017, held that since under Section 31 of the Code, a Resolution Plan made thereunder would bind the personal guarantor as well, and since, after the creditor is proceeded against, the guarantor stands in the shoes of the creditor, Section 14 would apply in favour of the personal guarantor as well. The interim application filed by Respondent No.1 was thus allowed, and the Appellant was restrained from moving against Respondent No.1. An

¶65

8 | P a g e 1 5

¶66

SA No.199 of 2025

¶67

appeal filed to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal resulted in the appeal being dismissed. By the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2018, the Appellate Tribunal relied upon Section 60(2) and (3) of the Code as well as Section 31 of the Code to find that the moratorium imposed under Section 14 would apply also to the personal guarantor. The reasoning was that since the personal guarantor can also be proceeded against, and forms part of a Resolution Plan which is binding on him, he is very much part of the insolvency process against the corporate debtor, and that, therefore, the moratorium imposed under Section 14 should apply to the personal guarantor as well.”

¶68

Having aggrieved against the above order, the appellant filed appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which held that Section 60 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 refers to insolvency resolution and liquidation for both corporate debtors and personal guarantors and that adjudicating authority for which shall be the National Company Law Tribunal, having territorial jurisdiction over place where registered office or corporate persona is located and that plain reading of the said Section, therefore, leads to conclusion that moratorium referred to in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 can have no manner of application to the personal guarantors of the corporate debtor .

¶69

It is discernible from the observations made in the above judgments cited by both sides counsels that moratorium referred to in Section 14 of the IBC cannot be made applicable to personal guarantors of corporate debtor. Hence, this Tribunal does not find any merit in the submission of the counsel for the applicants that during the interim moratorium period S.96(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the proceedings initiated by the 2^nd defendant under the SARFAESI Act 2002 is perse invalid.

¶70

It is the submission of the counsel for the applicants that part III of the IBC (Sections.94-101 dealing with personal guarantor) was notified by the Central Government by notification dated 15.11.2019. with effect from 01.12.2019 over a year after the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. Ramakrishnan & another (2018) 17 SCC 394 and that validity of the above notification has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalit Kumar Jain V. Union of India (2021) 9 SCC 321 and that part III including Sections 95, 96, 97,99 and 100 was subsequently upheld by a three judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dilip B.Jiwrajka V.Union of India.

¶71

In Lalit Kumar Jain V. Union of India (2021) 9 SCC 321, the impugned notification dated 15.11.2019 was challenged on

¶72

9 | P a g e 1 5

¶73

SA No.199 of 2025

¶74

the ground that the executive government could not have selectively brought into force the IBC and applied some of its provision to one category of individual, i.e., personal guarantor to the corporate creditor. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the above notification is legal and valid. In Dilip B.Jiwrajka V.Union of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined and upheld the validity of Sections 95 to 100 in part III of the IBC. Therefore this Tribunal holds that the aforesaid judgments have no application to the facts of the present case.

¶75

In Annexure-A7 possession notice, the outstanding amount as on 14.11.2025 is stated as Rs. 11,16,34,982.51. The description of the property with survey Nos. extent and boundary for all items of the properties has been furnished in schedule A to Annexure-A7. The applicants have not pointed out in the SA as to how the outstanding amount and description of the property is incorrect.

¶76

The counsel for the applicants submitted further that the 1st proviso to S.14(1) of the Act requires of the application to be made in the writing of the secured creditor and to be supported by an affidavit sworn by the Authorized Officer and that Annexure-A16 application and Annexure-A17 affidavit are both in writing of and sworn by , the same individual, Mr. Rakesh Dawny Kokkattu and that therefore Annexure-A16 and Annexure-A17 per se invalid.

¶77

Rule 2(a) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 defines an Authorized Officer as follows :

¶78

“(a) “Authorized Officer” means an officer not less than a chief manager of a public sector bank or equivalent, as specified by the Board of Directors or Board of trustees of the secured creditor or any other person or authority exercising powers of superintendence, direction and control of the business or affairs of the secured creditor, as the case may be, to exercise the rights of a secured creditor under the Act. ”

¶79

The provision of Section 13(12) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 reads that the rights of a secured creditor under this Act may be exercised by one or more of his officers authorised in this behalf in such manner as may be prescribed.

¶80

If both Rule 2(a) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 and the provision of Section 13(12) of SARFAESI Act 2002 are read together conjointly, it will be clarified that the secured creditor can also act as Authorized Officer provided he has been authorised in this behalf. In Para 2 of Annexure – A13 application it is stated that Smt. Beena Kottakkandi has been duly appointed as

¶81

10 | P a g e 1 5

¶82

SA No.199 of 2025

¶83

Authorized Officer of the petitioner for exercising powers of superintendence, direction and control of business or affairs of the secured creditor and to exercise rights of a secured creditor under securitisation act and as such she has been empowered to represent the petitioners in all proceedings under the securitisation act.

¶84

The provision of the SARFAESI Act 2002 does not either impliedly or explidly prohibit the secured creditor to act as an Authorized Officer for the purpose of filing affidavit under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. It is pertinent to mention that the Chief Judicial Magistrate passes order not only on the basis of the affidavit filed by the Authorized Officer but also on the basis of the application and documents filed in support of the application by the secured creditor. However, Ext.B23 Board of Resolution dated 13.02.2024 authorizes the above said officer to act as the Authorized Officer of the 1^st defendant company.

¶85

In the cause title of Annexure – A16 application and Annexure-A 17 affidavit, it is stated that TATA Capital Ltd is represented by its Senior Manager, Mr. Rakesh Dawny Kokkattu, and Authorized Officer of TATA Capital Ltd. Hence, it is evident that the secured creditor is represented by its Senior Manager. In Para 1 of Annexure – A17 affidavit it is mentioned that aforesaid Mr. Rakesh Dawny Kokkattu is the petitioner and the deponent i.e, the Authorized Officer of the petitioner company. Hence, it is discernible that Mr. Rakesh Dawny Kokkattu who is the Senior Manager of the secured creditor has also been designated as Authorized Officer of the secured creditor. Therefore this Tribunal does not find any merit or force in the submission of the counsel for the applicants that the secured creditor cannot act as an Authorized Officer and that Annexure–A16 application and Annexure-A17 affidavit is invalid and that as such Annexure – A19 order dos not record any independent application of mind to the above structural point.

¶86

It is the submission of the counsel for the applicants that the description of the property in Annexure-A 16 and Annexure-A 17 are incorrect and that there is no details of the building in AnnexureA 16 and Annexure-A 17 and that the outstanding as on the date of Annexure-A16 and Annexure-A17 is not correct and that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without verifying the aforesaid aspect passed an illegal order.

¶87

A perusal of Annexure-A16 application shows that the description of the secured asset which are four items is clearly furnished with extent, survey number, location and boundaries. The recital “ all part and parcel of immovable property ….. as per the sale deed No. …..” has been mentioned in all four items of the property under the heading of schedule of property. “Part and parcel” means the structures or building put up or constructed on the land.

¶88

11 | P a g e 1 5

¶89

SA No.199 of 2025

¶90

Further, the description as per the sale deed is also mentioned. It is not the contention of the applicants that the properties refereed to Annexure-A16 application are not the secured assets. Hence, this Tribunal does not find any substance in the argument of the counsel for the applicants that the existence of the building, door number, built up area, etc is not mentioned in the description of the properties.

¶91

A perusal of Annexure-A17 affidavit shows that the statutory requirements stipulated under Clause (i) to (ix) to the proviso of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been substantially complied with by the defendants. A perusal of Annexure-A19 order shows that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery after having perused the contents of the affidavit and the documents filed in support of the affidavit and having satisfied over the same passed the order appointing Advocate Commissioner to taking physical possession of the secured asset. This Tribunal does not find any illegality in the above order.

¶92

A perusal of Ext.B3 which is Asset Id Based Searched Report shows that the security interest over the secured assets was registered on 09.08.2024 with the Central Registry.

¶93

This Tribunal having considered the pleadings and the documents presented by both the parties and arguments put forth by both sides’ counsels, finds that the applicants have failed to establish their case so as to get the reliefs sought for in the SA. Therefore, this Tribunal holds that the applicants are not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the SA.

¶94

In the result, SA No. 199/2025 stands dismissed. No costs.

¶95

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

¶96

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 04^th day of September, 2026.

(Su. WILLYAHM)

PRESIDING OFFICER

Rn/

12 | P a g e 1 5

SA No.199 of 2025

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

¶103

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	04.03.2021	Udayam Registeration Certificate No. UDAYAM-KL-02-0013266	Ext.A1
2.	15.11.2024	Demand notice	Ext.A2
3.	25.11.2024	Objection/ representation u/S. 13(3A)	Ext.A3
4.	06.12.2024	S.13(3A )Reply	Ext.A4
5.	03.01.2025	Order in CP(IB)/55/KOB/2024 Passed by theHon’bleNCLT,Kochi	Ext.A5
6.	06.02.2025	Order in CP(IB)/55/KOB/2024 Passed by theHon’bleNCLT,Kochi	Ext.A6
7.	23.01.2025	Possession notice	Ext.A7
8.	05.06.2025	Notice in CMP No. 1639/2025 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery	Ext.A8
9.	26.05.2025	Case status in CMP No. 1639/2025 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery and Adv. Anagha Thomas was appointed as Advocate Commissioner	Ext.A9
10.	29.05.2025	Case status in Crl.MP No. 1639/2025 of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery obtained from eCourt website	Ext.A10
11.	04.04.2025	Order in claim petition (IBC)/55/KOB/2024 passed by Hon’ble NCLT,Kochi	Ext.A11
12.	11.01.2025	S. 95 application on the file of NCLT, Kochi, against 2^nd applicant	Ext.A12
13.	12.01.2025	S. 95 application on the file of NCLT, Kochi, against Molly G wife of 2^nd applicant	Ext.A13
14.	11.01.2025	Case status with respect to S. 95 application on the file of NCLT, Kochi.	Ext.A14
15.	12.01.2025	Case status with respect to S. 95 application on the file of NCLT, Kochi.	Ext.A15
16.	---	S.14 application in CMP No. 1639/2025, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Thalassery	Ext.A16

¶104

13 | P a g e 1 5

¶105

SA No.199 of 2025

¶106

17.	---	Affidavit in CMP No. 1639/2025, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Thalassery	Ext.A17
18.	---	CERSAI report in CMP No. 1639/2025, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery	Ext.A18
19.	29.05.2025	S.14 Order, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery	Ext.A19
20.	12.12.2023	Power of Attorney executed by 3^rd applicant to Adv. Kaithara Mathew Xavier	Ext.A20
21.	30.11.2023	Mortgage agreement executed by 3^rd applicantin favourof 1^st applicant	Ext.A21
22.	11.01.2025	Case status with respect to S.95 application on the file of NCLT, Kochi, No. CP(IB)- 13/2025	Ext-A22
23.	12.01.2025	Case status with respect to S.95 application on the file of NCLT, Kochi, No. CP(IB)- 14/2025	Ext-A23

¶107

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

¶108

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	13.05.2019	Sanction letter	Ext-B1
2.	31.08.2023	Loan cum Guarantee agreement (Channel Finance)	Ext-B2
3.	22.12.2023	Sanction letter	Ext-B3
4.	26.12.2023	Term loan agreement	Ext-B4
5.	27.12.2023	Memorandum of Entry of deposit of title deeds	Ext-B5
6.	17.11.2023	Sale deed No. 3285/2023	Ext-B6
7.	01.08.2024	Supreme Court Judgment	Ext-B7
8.	25.10.2024	Board of resolution	Ext.B8
9.	15.11.2024	Notice u.S 13(2) issued by Tata Capital Ltd	Ext-B9
10.	21.11.2024	Photographs 13(2) notice affixed in the scheduled property	Ext-B10
11.	23.11.2024	Paper publication in Chandrika daily in vernacular language	Ext-B11
12.	23.11.2024	Paper publication in the New Indian Expressin English language	Ext.B11(a)
13.	--	Notice u.S13(2)	Ext-B12

¶109

14 | P a g e 1 5

¶110

SA No.199 of 2025

¶111

14.	09.08.2024	CERSAI registration		Ext-B13
15.	23.01.2025	SymbolicPossession No	tice	Ext-B14
16.	--	Consignment receipts, and tracking details	postal receipt	Ext-B15
17.	28.01.2025	Paper publication possession in newsp dailyin vernacular Lan	of symbolic aper Chandrika guage	Ext-B16
18.	28.01.2025	Paper publication possession in newsp Indian Expressin Engli	of symbolic aper the New sh	Ext-B16(a)
19.	23.01.2025	Photo affixture of possession notice property	the symbolic affixed in the	Exte-B17
20.	25.02.1964	Hon’ble SC Judgment		Ext-B18
21	16.02.1994	Hon’ble SC Judgment		Ext-B19
22	05.05.1999	Hon’ble SC Judgment No. 142/1983	in Civil Appeal	Ext-B20
23	04.04.2025	Order passed by the NC in CP/IBC/55/2024	LT, Kochi bench	Ext.B21
24	14.08.2018	SC judgment in Ramakrishnan & Anr, 394	SBI v. V. (2018) 17 SCC	Ext.B22
25	13.02.2024	Board of resolutionExt.	B23	Ext.B23
26	16.06.2025	Foreclosure and accou Channel Finance Agr accounts 3106620 EV5006620	nt statement of eement in loan , 3006620,	Ext.B245 & Ext.B25

¶112

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶113

Rn/

¶114

15 | P a g e 1 5

Malayalam Vehicles India Pvt. Ltd. v. Tata Capital Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malayalam Vehicles India Pvt. Ltd. v. Tata Capital Limited

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

Bank of India versus Deepak

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Fortune Multi Products and Traders

State Bank of India versus Sh. Sukhdev Singh

Canara Bank versus Sahruk Trading Co. and Anr.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Eranna Alias Eranna Devarmani

City Union Bank Limited versus Ms Rajdeep Tissues