The Tribunal dismissed an Application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act filed by a borrower challenging the recovery process. The Tribunal held the application was barred by limitation as it was not filed within 45 days of the possession notice issued under Section 13(4).
The Securitization Application No.292/2022 is dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2026.
SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.292/2022
Between
Moly, W/o.George, Athiyanthan House, Perinjanam Desom, Perinjanam Village, Kodungallur Taluk, Thrissur District. …Applicant
And
This Securitization Application having been heard on
16.06.2026 in the presence of Advocate Mr.P.S.Sujeth for the applicant and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:
SA 292/2022
2
F I N A L O R D E R
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 applicant/borrower has filed this SA under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act seeking relief to setting aside the securitization proceeding.
Brief facts of the case :
2.1 In this SA the applicant claims that she availed loan of ₹.10,00,000/- from the defendant in the year 2016 for agricultural purpose by depositing title deeds of an extent of 4.05 Ares of property and the residential building standing thereon described in details in the SA.
2.2 Due to non-repayment of the loan a demand notice u/s.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 22.12.2020. After issuing the demand notice the applicant claimed that she submitted representation u/s.13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act, marked annexure A1 to regularize the loan. But no reply was given by the defendants. It is also claimed that possession notice issued by the defendants were not properly issued as per the statutory
SA 292/2022
3
requirements. There were no paper publication and affixture of the possession notice as required under the statute. Hence the applicant claims for setting aside the securitization proceeding.
(i) Whether the securitization proceeding initiated by the defendants under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act suffers from any illegality or irregularity to interdict with the same?
SA 292/2022
4
(ii) Whether the applicant is entitled to get any relief in this case?
FINDINGS:
Point Nos.(i) & (ii):
reported in 2023 KHC 6012 in the case of K.Sreedhar v. M/s.Raus Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & others held as follows:-
“ When it was the case on behalf of the borrowers that in view of Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, the properties were agricultural lands, the same were being exempted from the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the burden was upon the borrower to prove that the secured properties were agricultural
SA 292/2022
5
lands and actually being used as agricultural lands and/or agricultural activities were going on.”
In view of this ratio, the applicant has to establish that the secured asset is agricultural land at the time of availing the loan. No such evidence or material is placed. Rather the applicant has claimed in the SA that she mortgaged a residential building to avail the loan. In such premises, the contention of the applicant claiming the secured asset as agricultural land is not acceptable.
SA 292/2022
6
possession notice is barred by limitation, as the same is not filed within 45 days from the date of issuance of possession notice.
Hence it is ordered:-
SA 292/2022
7
ORDER
(Dictated to my Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 30th day of June, 2026).
[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER
SA 292/2022
8
Documents on the part of the applicant
| Annexures | Date | Partic | ulars of documents | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 10.02.2021 | True copy submitted to |
of the represent the Manager. |
ation |
| A2 | 07.02.2022 | Possession applicant |
Notice issued to |
the |
Documents on the part of the defendants
| Annexures | Date | Particulars of documents |
|---|---|---|
| D1 | 08.03.2022 | True copy of the 13(4) Notice issued by the Bank along with the translation. |
| D2 | 20.09.2022 | True copy of the Statement of accounts pertaining to the loan account of the applicant. |
PRESIDING OFFICER
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER
Dated the 30th June, 2026
SA No.292/2024
Between
Moly, W/o.George, Athiyanthan House, Perinjanam Desom, Perinjanam Village, Kodungallur Taluk, Thrissur District. ...Applicant
And
The Authorized Officer, Kerala State Co-op. Bank, Sahakarana Sapthadimandiram, Kovilakathupadam, Thrissur - 680 022 & another. …Defendants
F I N A L O R D E R
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to relief in the securitization proceedings initiated by the defendants?
Whether the applicant filed the Securitization Application within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act?
Whether an agricultural land claim exempts the secured assets under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act given the applicant's failure to prove it?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.Sreedhar v. M/s.Raus Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & othersDistinguished¶32
2023 KHC 6012
suo moto caseDistinguished¶43
WP(C)No.3/2020
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Moly W/o.George
The Authorized Officer, Kerala State Co-op. Bank
Sovan Kumar Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
