Dismissed

Noushad J v. Indian Bank

DRT8 Jun 2026SA/283/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants borrowed ₹19L from Indian Bank and defaulted. Bank issued demand and possession notices under SARFAESI Act. Applicants challenged via Securitization Application, citing claim of excessive loan amount and lack of proper notice service. Tribunal held applicants failed to object to quantum under Sec 13(3-A) and dismissed the application. Principal summary: Applicants borrowed ₹19L from Ind

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application No.283/2025 dismissed without costs.

Noushad J versus Indian Bank — 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 8^th day of June, 2026

¶4

Securitization Application No.283/2025

¶5

Between

¶6

Noushad J,

¶7

S/o. Jamaludheenkunju, Kochuthundil Kizhakkathil, Pallisserikkal P.O., Sasthamkotta, Kollam Dt. Pin - 690 521.

¶8

Saleena E,

¶9

W/o. Noushad J, Kochuthundil Kizhakkathil, Pallisserikkal P.O., Sasthamkotta, Kollam Dt.

¶10

Pin - 690 521. …Applicants.

¶11

And

¶12

The Indian Bank,

¶13

Sasthamkotta Branch, Represented by its Branch Manager, Sasthamkotta Branch, Kollam - 690 521.

¶14

The Authorized Officer, Chief Manager, Indian Bank,

¶15

Valiapally Junction,

¶16

SA 283/2025

¶17

¶18

Pulluvila.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Pin - 695 526. …Defendants

¶19

This Securitization Application, having been heard on 19.05.2026 in the presence of Advocate Mr. B.K.Gopalakrishnan for the applicants and Advocate Mr. Rajesh Rajagopala Pillai for the defendants and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶20

F I N A L O R D E R

¶21

Challenging the securitization proceedings initiated by the defendants 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 praying to set aside the securitization measures, including the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner.

¶22

Brief facts of the case :

¶23

2.1. In the SA, the applicants claim that they availed a housing loan of ₹19,75,000/- from the first defendant bank on 30.07.2014 by creating equitable mortgage over the subject matter property of an extent of 9 cents with residential building described in details in the SA.

¶24

SA 283/2025

¶25

¶26

2.2 The applicants claim in the SA that after availing the loan they were repaying the same regularly. Due to Covid 2019 pandemic, first applicant lost his job and returned to home from Gulf Country. His wife also met with an accident and hence the loan could not be repaid in time.

¶27

2.3 The 2^nd defendant issued a demand notice u/s.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act calling the applicants to repay the loan outstanding of an amount of ₹20,38,325/- due as on 11.04.2023 followed by issuance of possession notice in respect of the subject matter property.

¶28

2.4 On getting of such notice, the applicants approached the defendants claiming the outstanding liability as incorrect and as on 30.06.2023 an amount of ₹16,91,688/- was outstanding but no step was taken by the defendants to rectify the same.

¶29

2.5 The defendants approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam in M.C.No.609/2023 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take physical possession of the secured asset and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the CJM for the said purpose. The applicants approached the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala twice by filing WP(C)No.26772/2023 and WP(C)No.3733/2025 in which indulgence was shown to the

¶30

SA 283/2025

¶31

¶32

applicants but they did not remit the amount as directed by the Hon’ble High Court. Subsequently, this SA is filed challenging the securitization measures claiming that there was no service of notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner and the securitization measures are not duly followed as per the statutory requirement. Hence the applicants claim for setting aside the securitization proceeding.

¶33

Defendants filed written statement denying the averments claiming that all the statutory measures are duly complied and the security interest was registered in the CERSAI Portal. All the relevant documents are produced. In absence of any illegality in the securitization proceeding, applicants have no bonafide in challenging the same. Hence the SA, being devoid of any merit, may be dismissed.

¶34

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

¶35

(i) Whether the securitization proceedings initiated by the defendants suffer from any illegality or irregularity?

¶36

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

SA 283/2025

FINDINGS:

Points Nos.(i) &(ii ):

¶41

Admittedly, the applicants availed the housing loan from the first defendant bank and due to default in repayment, the securitization proceeding was initiated. The applicants challenged the proceeding before the Hon’ble High Court in WP(C)No.26772 of 2023 which was disposed permitting them to remit ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) before 03.09.2024 and the remaining amount in instalments. But the applicants did not comply with the same. Again, the applicants filed WP(C)No.3733/2025 before the Hon’ble High Court, in which an interim order was passed. But the same was also not complied. Hence the WP(C) was dismissed on 03.02.2025.

¶42

During argument, the learned counsel for the applicants could not point out any illegality in the securitization proceeding. It is only claimed that the defendant bank has claimed excessive amount in the loan account. Admittedly, after receipt of the demand notice no objection was raised by the applicants under Sec.13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act challenging the demanded amount. After taking further measure in the securitization proceeding, the applicants cannot turn back and

¶43

SA 283/2025

¶44

¶45

claim the demand made in the notice as excessive keeping in view of the ratio decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the judgment reported in 2022 (3) KLT 645 in the case of AGP City Gas

¶46

Private Limited v. M/s.Lynx Properties & Developers & others , wherein it is held as follows:

¶47

“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.

¶48

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. ……”

¶49

Even assuming for a moment that there is any excessive claim by the defendants, the same cannot be a ground to interfere with the securitization proceeding. The applicants can challenge the same by filing representation before the defendants or can challenge the same in the event of filing any recovery proceeding. The scope of adjudication of the Tribunal is limited in view of the statutory provision contained u/s.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act which reads as follows:

¶50

SA 283/2025

¶51

¶52

“(2) Where any borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor under a security agreement, makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any instalment thereof, and his account in respect of such debt is classified by the secured creditor as non-performing asset, then, the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under sub-section (4).”

¶53

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.1876 of 2016 in the case of Central Bank of India & Anr. Versus Smt.Prabha Jain & Ors. dated 9^th January 2025 held in paragraph 38 that “ ……….Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 17 respectively are instructive to the level of examination that the DRT can undertake, and the same is limited to the validity of the measures under sub-section (4) of section 13………”. In view of such proviso and ratio decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicants are not valid in challenging the securitization proceeding.

¶54

The defendants have produced all the relevant documents regarding compliance of the statutory requirements. In absence of any illegality in the securitization proceeding, the applicants are not entitled to get any relief in the proceeding and both the points are answered against them.

¶55

Hence it is ordered: -

SA 283/2025

ORDER

In view of the foregoing reasons, the SA, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed, but in the

¶60

circumstances, without costs.

¶61

(Dictated to my steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 8^th day of June 2026.)

¶62

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶63

SA 283/2025

¶64

¶65

Documents on the part of the applicants

¶66

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
A1	10.02.2025	True photocopy of the statement of accounts issued by the 1^stdefendant bank.
A2	07.09.2025	True photocopy of the MC.No.609/2023 filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam supported by an affidavit.
A3	23.09.2023	True photocopy of the Order in M.C No.609/2023 of the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam.
A4	06.08.2024	True photocopy of the notice of the Advocate Commissioner Advocate Mr.Haseem Muhammad S.
A5	..	True photocopy of the notice of the Advocate Commissioner Advocate Mr.Haseem Muhammad S.
A6 Doc	03.02.2025 uments on th	True photocopy of the Judgment in WP(C)No.3733/2025 of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. e part of the defendants
Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
B1	12.04.2023	True copy of the demand notice.
B2 (Series) (2 nos.)	..	True copy of the postal acknowledgement cards evidencing the receipt of demand notice.
B3	27.06.2023	True copies of possession notice published in The New Indian Express (English daily).

¶67

SA 283/2025

¶68

¶69

B4	27.06.2023	True copy	of the possession notice
		published	in Kerala Kaumudi
		(Malayalam	daily).
B5	..	True copy	of the CERSAI Report.

¶70

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶71

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶72

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶73

Dated this the 8^th June, 2026

¶74

SA No.283/2025

¶75

Between

¶76

Noushad J, S/o. Jamaludheenkunju, Kochuthundil Kizhakkathil, Pallisserikkal P.O., Sasthamkotta, Kollam Dt. Pin - 690 521. And another. …Applicants And The Indian Bank, Sasthamkotta Branch, Represented by its Branch Manager, Sasthamkotta Branch, Kollam, Pin - 690 521. And another. …Defendants

¶77

F I N A L O R D E R

Noushad J v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noushad J v. Indian Bank

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

Roy versus Irinjalakuda Town Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Sunilkumar versus Indian Bank

Federal Bank versus Firoz Acharath