Dismissed

Gladys Demseen Antoney v. Federal Bank

DRT27 Jan 2026SA/35/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged securitization proceedings and the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, seeking to set aside the entire process due to alleged lack of service and illegality. The Tribunal found no illegality as possessory notices were duly served and published. The application was dismissed, and costs were awarded for delay.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- for unnecessary delay caused by the applicant.

Gladys Demseen Antoney versus Federal 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 27^th day of January, 2026

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.35/2023

¶5

Between

¶6

Gladys Demseen Antoney, W/o. Demseen Antoney, Aged 55 years, Thuppayath, Kakkottumoola, Mayyanad P.O., Kollam District, PIN – 691 303. …Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

The Authorised Officer, Federal Bank Limited, Mavelikkara Division, Padinjare Thalakkal, Cheriyan Chembers, Puthiyakavu, Mavelikkara, Alappuzha – 690 101.

¶9

The Manager, Federal Bank Limited, Mavelikkara Division, Padinjare Thalakkal, Cheriyan Chembers, Puthiyakavu, Mavelikkara, Alappuzha – 690 101. …Defendants

¶10

SA 35/2023

¶11

¶12

This Securitization Application having been heard on 22.12.2025 in the presence of Advocate Mr. Roy Antony representing Advocate Bijith S. Khan for the applicant and Advocate Ruby P.Paulose for the defendants and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶13

F I N A L O R D E R

¶14

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 has filed this SA under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act to set aside the entire proceedings including the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam.

¶15

Brief facts of the case

¶16

The applicant availed a loan of Rs.16,15,000/- from the 2^nd respondent on 09.09.2015 by creating security interest over the subject matter property. Due to default in repayment the securitization proceeding was initiated and the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued to the applicant by the defendants calling him to repay the outstanding amount followed by issuance of possession notice under Section 13(4) of

¶17

SA 35/2023

¶18

¶19

the SARFAESI Act. The applicant challenged the possession notice before the Hon’ble High Court vide WP(C) No.30765/2021, which was withdrawn. Subsequently the defendants filed MC No.281/2022 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam to take physical possession of the secured asset. Aggrieved with the order of the learned CJM and the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner, the SA is filed by the applicant praying to set aside the entire proceeding including the order passed by the CJM.

¶20

On the other hand, the defendants have filed written statement denying the averments and claimed inter alia that the demand notice was duly served on the applicant. The relevant documents are produced in this case. So also, possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was issued to the applicant. It was duly published and affixture was made as per the statutory requirement. Being unable to take possession of the secured asset, application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was filed before the CJM, Kollam to take physical possession of the secured asset. There is no illegality in any such proceeding. In absence of proof of any illegality, the SA may be dismissed.

¶21

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

¶22

SA 35/2023

¶23

¶24

(i) Whether the securitization proceeding initiated by the defendants suffers from any illegality or defect or irregularity to intervene with the same?

¶25

(ii) Whether the applicant is entitled to get any relief in this proceeding?

¶26

FINDINGS:

¶27

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):-

¶28

During argument the learned counsel for the applicant

¶29

fairly conceded that there is no illegality in the measure taken by the defendants. It is only contended that some breathing time may be given to repay the loan.

¶30

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants contended that since there is no illegality in the proceeding and the interim order passed by this Tribunal, having not complied by the applicant, the applicant has no bonafide in seeking any breathing time to repay the loan. Hence the SA may be dismissed.

¶31

There is no dispute about availing of the loan by the applicant from the defendants and due to default in repayment, the securitization proceeding was initiated. The defendants have produced copies of the acknowledgment cards showing service of the demand notice including the copies of the acknowledgment cards in support of service of the possession notice. Paper publications and the photographs showing affixture of the notice are

¶32

SA 35/2023

¶33

¶34

also filed. The applicant has failed to establish any illegality in the measure under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. So also the order passed by the CJM is not produced by the applicant to find out any illegality in such order. The applicant has miserably failed to establish any illegality or irregularity in the securitization proceeding to interdict. Hence both the points are answered against the applicant. If the applicant would approach the defendant in writing to redeem the entire loan amount within a reasonable period within 15 days of passing of the judgment the defendant may consider the same in accordance with the law.

¶35

Hence it is ordered:-

¶36

ORDER

¶37

In view of the forgoing reasons the SA, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) due to unnecessary delay caused by the applicant in the securitization proceeding.

¶38

(Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 27^th day of January, 2026.

¶39

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶40

SA 35/2023

¶41

¶42

Documents on the part of the applicant

¶43

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-A1	01.07.2021	True photostat copy of the issued under Section 13(2) SARFAESI Act by the 1^stdefend	notice of the ant.
Annexure-A2	02.11.2021	True photocopy of Possession issued by the 1^stdefendant.	Notice
Annexure-A3	24.01.2022	The Judgment in WP(C) 30765/2021.	No.
Annexure-A4	30.12.2022	True photostat copy of the issued by the Advocate Commis	Notice sioner.

¶44

Documents on the part of the defendants

¶45

Annexures Date Particulars of documents Annexure-R1 & Copies of acknowledgment cards of R1(a) Section 13(2) Notice. Annexure-R2 & Copies of acknowledgment cards of R2(a) Section 13(4) Notice. Annexure-R3 & Copies of the publication of Section R3(a) 13(4) Notice. Annexure-R4 The copy of photograph of affixture of possession notice. Annexure-R5 The copy of Order in R.P. No.1291/2022 in WP(C) No. 30765/21.

¶46

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶47

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶48

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶49

Dated the 27^th January, 2026

¶50

SA No.35/2023

¶51

Between

¶52

Gladys Demseen Antoney, W/o. Demseen Antoney, Aged 55 years, Thuppayath, Kakkottumoola, Mayyanad P.O., Kollam District, PIN – 691 303. …Applicant

¶53

And

¶54

The Authorised Officer, Federal Bank Limited, Mavelikkara Division, Padinjare Thalakkal, Cheriyan Chembers, Puthiyakavu, Mavelikkara, Alappuzha, PIN – 690 101 & Anr. …Defendants

¶55

F I N A L O R D E R

Gladys Demseen Antoney v. Federal Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gladys Demseen Antoney 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

Paramjit Singh versus Union Bank of India

Kiranjeet Kaur versus Uco Bank

Excellon Software Private Limited through Director Vinodkumar Laxminarayan Tambi versus Bank of Maharashtra

Mr Abhishek Anand versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Anup

Bank of India versus Salasar Garments