Dismissed

Amarchand Sathyapalan v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

DRT17 Jun 2026SA/353/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitization application challenging proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal found no illegality in the demand notice, the rejection of anOTS proposal, or the possession proceedings under Section 14. The applicant failed to establish any defect warranting interdict.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000 payable by the applicant to the defendants.

Amarchand Sathyapalan versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd. — 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 17^th day of June, 2026

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.353/2022

¶5

Between

¶6

Amarchand Sathypalan, S/o.Sathyapalan Madhavan H.No.IX/275, Apsaras, Vennicode P.O. Cherunniyoor, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram, Pin – 693 518.

¶7

And

¶8

The Authorized Officer, LIC Housing Finance Ltd., Area Office, 2^nd Floor, Leela Towers, Pattam P.O., Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram, Pin – 695 004.

¶9

The Manager, LIC Houisng Finance Ltd., Area Office, 2^nd Floor, Leela Towers, Pattam P.O., Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram, Pin – 695 004. …Defendants

¶10

SA 353/2022

¶11

¶12

This Securitization Application having been heard on 10.06.2026 in the presence of Advocate Mr. Sageer Ibrahim K.I. for the applicant and Advocate Ms.Sreedevi B representing counsel for Advocate Mr. A.S.P. Kurup 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/co-borrower has filed this SA under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act seeking relief to set aside the entire securitization proceeding.

¶15

Brief facts of the case :

¶16

2.1 The applicant, as a co-borrower, availed housing loan from the defendants, as per sanction letter dated 31.01.2018 by mortgaging an extent of 8.03 Ares of property and building in Sy.No.514/2 of Cheruniyoor Village as security for the loan availed. After availing the loan, the applicant was remitting installments regularly towards principal and interest. But due to some financial stringency, the loan could not be repaid in time. Consequently, the

¶17

SA 353/2022

¶18

¶19

loan turned to NPA followed by issuance of demand notice under Sec.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act by the defendantS , calling the applicant to repay the outstanding amount of ₹2,25,86,742/- as on 19.04.2021. The amount could not be repaid within the statutory period of 60 days due to financial stringencies faced by the applicant due to outbreak of Covid 19.

¶20

2.2 Applicant submitted a proposal to settle the loan on 17.09.2021 by remitting advance cheques but the defendants did not consider such proposal. The applicant filed WP(C)No.21382/2021 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, which was disposed with a direction to the defendants to consider the proposal within two weeks. After passing of the judgment, the defendants communicated by email on 01.01.2022 that the OTS proposal was rejected. Again, the applicant approached the Hon’ble High Court in WP(C)No.2388/2022 which was disposed permitting the applicant to approach the Tribunal.

¶21

2.3 The defendants filed M.C.No.562/2022 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram to take physical possession of the secured assets in which an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who issued a notice to take possession of the secured assets. Hence the applicant filed this SA,

¶22

SA 353/2022

¶23

¶24

challenging the demand notice as well as notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the secured assets with a prayer to set aside the entire securitization proceeding.

¶25

The defendants filed written statement denying the averments and claiming inter alia that there is no illegality in the securitization proceeding. All the measures are taken in accordance with the law. The applicant, having no merit in case, raised vexatious claim which is not entertainable. Physical possession of the secured asset is already taken which is not challenged in this proceeding. In absence of any illegality, the securitization proceeding is not at all warranted. Hence the SA, being devoid of any merit, may be dismissed.

¶26

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

¶27

(i) Whether the securitization proceedings initiated by the defendants suffer from any illegality to intervene with the same?

¶28

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

SA 353/2022

FINDINGS:

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):

¶33

Admittedly, the applicant availed housing loan by mortgaging the subject matter property. Due to default in repayment, securitization proceeding was initiated. Receipt of demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is not disputed by the applicant. After receipt of the demand notice, the applicant has not raised any objection or representation in disputing the demand. Instead, the applicant submitted OTS proposal, which was not accepted by the defendant.

¶34

M.C.No.562/2022 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was filed by the defendant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, to take physical possession of the secured asset. During argument stage, the learned counsel for the applicant did not point out any illegality in such proceeding. The learned counsel for the defendants contended that physical possession of the secured asset is already taken by preparing inventory by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The report of the Advocate Commissioner dated 02.06.2026 is filed. Such measure is not challenged in the SA. Applicant has miserably filed to establish any illegality or defect in

¶35

SA 353/2022

¶36

¶37

securitization proceeding to interdict. In absence of proof of any illegality, the applicant is not entitled to get any relief in this case. Both the points are answered against the applicant.

¶38

Hence it is ordered:-

¶39

ORDER

¶40

In view of the foregoing reasons, the SA, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed with costs of ₹10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) payable by the applicant to the defendants for causing delay in the securitization proceeding without any valid and

¶41

legal reason.

¶42

(Dictated to my Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 17^th day of June, 2026.)

¶43

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶44

SA 353/2022

¶45

¶46

Documents on the part of the applicant

¶47

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
A1	31.01.2018	True copy of the loan sanction letter.
A2	19.04.2021	True copy of the demand notice.
A3	-	True copy of the relevant extract of the e.mail communication issued by the defendant.
A4	17.09.2021	True copy of the application for OTS submitted by the applicant to the defendant.
A5	21.12.2021	True copy of the judgment in WP(C)No.21382/2021 of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala.
A6	01.01.2022	True copy of the e.mail communication sent to the applicant by the defendant.
A7	06.04.2022	True copy of the judgment in WP(C)No.2388/2022 of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala.
A8	22.06.2S02 2	True copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner with English Translation.
A9	04.06.2022	True copy of the warrant of the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate
		Court, Thiruvananthapuram in M.C.No.562/2002

¶48

Documents on the part of the defendants: Nil

¶49

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶50

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶51

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶52

Dated the 17^th June, 2026

¶53

SA No.353/2022

¶54

Between

¶55

Amarchand Sathypalan, S/o.Sathyapalan Madhavan H.No.IX/275, Apsaras, Vennicode P.O. Cherunniyoor, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram, Pin – 693 518. …Applicant

¶56

And

¶57

The Authorized Officer, LIC Housing Finance Ltd., Area Office, 2^nd Floor, Leela Towers, Pattam P.O., Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram, Pin – 695 004. & another. …..Defendants

¶58

F I N A L O R D E R

Amarchand Sathyapalan v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarchand Sathyapalan v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

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

Jiju J Kandramattom versus South Indian Bank

Federal Bank versus Firoz Acharath

Sunilkumar versus Indian Bank

Kabeer K versus Bank of Baroda

James C v versus Canara Bank

South Indian Bank versus Ms Follow me Broadcasting limited liability partnership