Dismissed

Konari Hamsa Koya v. Punjab National Bank

DRT20 Jul 2026SA/357/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application by a borrower challenging recovery steps under SARFAESI Act, including limitation, lack of possession, and procedural irregularities, finding no merit.

What the court decided

AI extract

Konari Hamsa Koya versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 20th DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No.357 of 2026

¶6

Between

¶7

Konari Hamsa Koya, S/o Alavi Haji, Thekkepurath House, Kodakkad, Chettipadi, Parappanangadi, Malappuram-676 319.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

The Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Kozhikode, Shathabdi Bhavan, Mini Bypass Road, Govindapuram, Kozhikode-673 016.

¶11

--- Defendant

¶12

This Securitization Application coming on 29.06.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ms.Jyothis, representing counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Rajeevu representing counsel for the defendant and upon hearing arguments of learned Counsels for both the parties and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Securitisation Application was filed on 20.05.2026 seeking to call for the records in MC 386/2026 on the files of Chief Judicial

¶15

SA No.357 of 2026

¶16

Magistrate Court Manjeri and set aside Annexure-A2 notice and to call record leading to Annexure-A1 sale notice and to declare that the secured assets are not liable to be proceeded with under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Finance Assets and Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules and to direct the defendants not to proceed with the further steps to dispossess the applicant and family from the secured asset.

¶17

The applicant availed various credit facility from the defendant bank. He has created equal equitable mortgage over his immovable property admeasuring to 22.6 Ares comprised in Re.Sy.No. 713/4 in Ariyallur Village, Tirurangadi Taluk by depositing on title deeds with defendant bank as the collateral security.

¶18

Since the applicant defaulted in repayment of outstanding loan due, his loan account was classified as NPA asset. The defendant issued the demand notice to the applicant calling upon him to pay the outstanding loan amount due within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice, the applicant did not send any objection/ representation to the demand notice.

¶19

Therefore, the defendant issued possession notice dated 13.11.2024 for symbolically taking possession of the secured asset.

¶20

Thereafter the defendant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri and filed Annexure-B3 application and affidavit under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, order came to be passed in MC No. 386/2026, appointing advocate commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. The advocate commissioner issued Annexure-A2 notice dated 08.05.2026 stating that he would take possession of the secured asset. The applicant having aggrieved against the above measures has filed this SA.

¶21

The counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the period of limitation provided under the Limitation Act for recovery of money or enforcement of contract is 3 years and that demand notice was issued in 2019 and the cause of action arose on the expiry of 3 months from the date of service of demand notice and that therefore filing of application under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is barred by limitation.

¶22

The counsel for the applicant submitted further that the petition filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is not supported by a proper affidavit sworn in by the Authorized Officer and that the description of the property given in the schedule does not specify the existence of the residential building and that possession notice was not issued and that it was not published and that it was not served to the applicant and that issuance of Annexure-A1 sale notice without

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

SA No.357 of 2026

¶25

taking physical possession of the secured asset is illegal and that fixation of reserve price at Rs. 3,43,00,000/- is very low, when the worth of the property is Rs. 5,00,00,000/- and that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri mechanically allowed the application without verifying the statutory reforms contemplated under S. 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, and therefore SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶26

The counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that since the applicant defaulted in repaying the loan due, the loan account was classified as NPA from RBI guidelines and that the receipt of the demand notice is admitted by the applicant and that wife of the applicant, Naseera has filed SA No. 213/2024 and the son of the applicant, Muhammed Arij has filed SA No. 218/2024 before this Tribunal after issuance of the possession notice dated 13.11.2024 and that above SAs’ are pending before this Tribunal.

¶27

The counsel for the defendant submitted further the applicant challenged the measures initiated by the defendant by filing WP (C ) Nos. 42973/2024 and 43154/2024 and that both writ petitions were disposed of vide common judgement dated 20.12.2024, directing the applicant to pay the outstanding loan due in instalment and that the above direction was not complied with and the OTS facility granted by the defendant to the applicant was also not fulfilled and that sale was not fructified pursuant to issuance of Annexure-A1 sale notice and that reserve price was fixed only after obtaining valuation report from the approved valuer and all the statutory reforms stipulated under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was complied in receipt of filing of application and affidavit before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri and that since security interest has been credited over the secured asset, by deposit of title deed, the period of limitation is 12 years and that the contention of the applicant that initiation of the measures is barred by limitation is incorrect and that the pleadings disclosed/ canvassed in the SA does not disclose any procedural irregularities and that therefore SA may be dismissed with costs to the defendant.

¶28

The applicant has suppressed the filing of SAs’ 213/2024 and 218/2024 by his wife and his son respectively and pendency of these SAs’ before this Tribunal. Hence it is evident that the applicant has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands.

¶29

The applicant has not produced the copy of the demand notice and the possession notice. The filing of the aforesaid SAs’ by the wife and the son of the applicant is itself sufficient to accept the contention of the defendant that possession notice was served on the applicant.

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

SA No.357 of 2026

¶32

The applicant has not averred in the SA as to whether the classification of the loan account as NPA is against the RBI guidelines. The applicant has himself admitted his default in repayment of the outstanding amount due.

¶33

The applicant has not produced any materials before this Tribunal in order to prove his contention that the market value of the secured asset is more that Rs. 5,00,00,000/- and that low reserve price of Rs. 3,43,00,000/- has been fixed in Annexure-A1 sale notice. However, it is pertinent to mention that the sale was not fructified pursuant to issuance of Ext.A1 sale notice.

¶34

Applicant has not produced the copy of the application and affidavit filed by the defendant in MC No. 386/2026 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri. However, the defendant has produced copy of the application filed in MC No. 386/2026 as Annexure-B3. The applicant has not specifically averred in the SA as to whether the statutory requirements contemplated under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was not complied with by the defendant. The applicant has not even produced the copy of the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in MC No. 386/2026. Hence the contention of the applicant that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri mechanically allowed the application without verifying the statutory requirements contemplated under S.14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is liable to be rejected.

¶35

In the schedule of the Annexure- B3 application, it is clearly stated that the property described as “all parts and parcels of immovable property ……. owned by the 1^st respondent as per the partition Deed No. 185/2009 dated 21.01.2009 of Parappanangadi SRO’. Hence it is evident that the description of the property given in the above said partition deed has been furnished in Annexure-B3 application. Therefore, this Tribunal does not find any substance in the contention of the applicant that existence of the residential building is not stated in the schedule of Annexure-B3 application.

¶36

The applicant has mortgaged his immovable property with defendant bank by deposit the title deed on 18.02.2010 and subsequently after availment of other credit facility he again redeposited the title deed of the property on 23.05.2016, as evidenced by the letter of continuity dated 23.05.2016 which has been produced by the defendant herein along with Annexure-B3 application in MC No. 386. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that since the period of limitation was over, initiation of the measures by the defendant is illegal, is absolutely incorrect.

¶37

The applicant has failed to prove his case that the measures initiated by the defendant with regard to classification of the loan

¶38

Page 4 of 6

¶39

SA No.357 of 2026

¶40

account as NPA, issuance of the demand notice, possession notice and filing of the application and affidavit in MC No. 386/2026 and passing order by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri in MC No. 386/2026, are not in accordance with provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Security Interest (Enforcement Rules) 2002.

¶41

In view of the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that the applicant is not entitled to get the relief sought for in the SA.

¶42

In the result, SA 357/2026 stands dismissed. No costs.

¶43

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20t^h day of July, 2026.

¶44

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Rn/

Page 5 of 6

SA No.357 of 2026

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

¶49

Sl.	Date	Particulars
No.
1.	05.05.2026	True copy of Sale Notice of u/s 9(1) of the Act 3	Annexure-A1
2.	08.05.2026	True copy of notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner in MC	Annexure-A2
		No.386/2026

¶50

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

¶51

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	20.12.2024	True copy of the common judgement in W.P. (C) No.42973/2024 and W.P. (C) No.43154/2024	Annexure-B1
2.	27.10.2025	True copy of judgement in W.P. (C) No.39249/2025 of the Hon'ble High Court	Annexure-B2
3.	----	True copy of MC.386/2026 filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri bythe defendant	Annexure-B3

¶52

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶53

Rn/

¶54

Page 6 of 6

Konari Hamsa Koya v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Konari Hamsa Koya v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarabjeet Kaur versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Fatima Begum

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Shugafta Hamid

Anirudh Kundra versus Icici Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Mr. Bakhshish Singh @ Bakshish Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Ratan Singh