Dismissed

Shihabudeen v. Axis Bank

DRT29 May 2026SA/379/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Kerala dismissed a Securitization Application filed by a borrower against Axis Bank. The applicant challenged proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, alleging non-compliance with statutory mandates for possession application under Section 14, but failed to substantiate any illegality.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application is dismissed without costs, but applicant is given liberty to request repayment within a reasonable time.

Shihabudeen versus Axis Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Dated this the 29^th day of May, 2026

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.379/2025

¶5

Between

¶6

Shihabudeen, S/o.Badarudeen, Charuvila Veedu, Kilikolloor P.O., Pallavi Nagar – 34, Punthalathazham, Kollam – 691 004. …Applicant.

¶7

And

¶8

The Authorised Officer, Axis Bank – RAC, 2^nd floor, Nihal Complex, Karamana, Trivandrum – 695 002.

¶9

The Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Kadappakkada, Kollam – 691 008. …Defendants

¶10

This Securitization Application having been heard on 19.05.2026 in the presence of Advocate Mr. S. Abhilash for the applicant and Advocate Ms. Thankom Mukundakrishnan for the

¶11

SA 379/25 2

¶12

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 proceeding 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 with a prayer to set aside the securitization proceeding.

¶15

Brief facts of the case :

¶16

2.1 The applicant, being the proprietor of M/s.KNF Foot Wear, availed credit facilities from the 2^nd defendant bank for an amount of ₹20,00,000/- and also other loans by mortgaging the subject matter property of an extent of 5.47 Ares as described in paragraph 1 of the application.

¶17

2.2 Due to default in repayment, a demand notice u/s.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued by the defendant on 30.03.2022 calling the applicant to pay the outstanding within the statutory period. In the S.A. the applicant has not disputed the receipt of the demand notice. It is claimed by the applicant that after issuing the

¶18

SA 379/25 3

¶19

demand notice, he approached the defendants to give him breathing time to regularize the account by paying the overdue amount. Accordingly, the applicant repaid substantial amount.

¶20

2.3 The applicant also claims that in spite of repayment, the defendants approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam in M.C.No.647/2025 in a proceeding u/s.14 of the SARFAESI Act to take physical possession of the secured asset. Advocate Commissioner, appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, issued a notice to the applicant to take possession of the secured asset which is impugned in this proceeding. The applicant claims that all the measures, including the proceeding u/s.14 of the SARFAESI Act, are not complied as per the statutory mandates. In the affidavit filed before the CJM, the statutory requirement in swearing the declarations is not duly complied. In absence of compliance of the statutory requirements the defendants cannot proceed with the securitization proceeding and hence the SA is filed with a prayer to set aside entire securitization proceeding.

¶21

The defendants filed written statement denying the averments in the SA and claimed inter alia that of the statutory measures are duly complied. There is no illegality in the securitization proceeding. The CERSAI Certificate is also produced.

¶22

SA 379/25 4

¶23

So also there is no illegality in the proceedings u/s.14 of the SARFAESI Act. Hence the SA, being devoid of any merit, may be dismissed.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

Point Nos.(i) and (ii):

¶28

During argument the learned counsel for the applicant did

¶29

not raise any point or illegality in the securitization proceeding. It is only contended that some breathing time may be given to the applicant repay the loan. On the other hand the learned counsel for the defendants would contend that receipt of the demand notice by the applicant is not disputed. The statutory requirement in filing the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the CJM is

¶30

duly complied. The relevant documents are produced by the applicant, which cannot be said illegal in any manner. The learned CJM has also passed an order in appointing an Advocate

¶31

SA 379/25 5

¶32

Commissioner to take possession of the secured asset, which cannot be said illegal exercise of the jurisdiction and SA may be dismissed.

¶33

Admittedly, due to default in repayment of the loan by the applicant, the defendants issued a demand notice marked as Annexure-A1 which was duly received by the applicant. No objection or written statement was filed against the demand notice.

¶34

The applicant has also produced the affidavit filed by the Authorised officer before the Chief Judicial Magistrate accompanying the application under Sec.14 of the SARFAESI Act wherein at paragraph 15 it is stated as follows:

¶35

“the present outstanding liability as on 04.03.2025 is Rs.19,72,559/- in A/c No. 918030070708269 and Rs.13,39,026/in A/c. No. 918060070988442 and Rs.1,87,049/in A/c No.920060051297566 aggregating to an amount of Rs.34,98,634/excluding unapplied interest therein.”

¶36

The details of the secured asset is also described the affidavit as

¶37

well as in the application. No material illegality is noticed in such affidavit. The learned CJM has also passed the Annexure-A3 Order by application of mind after referring the materials on record which cannot be said illegal. The applicant has failed to establish any illegality in the securitization proceeding to interdict in the absence

¶38

SA 379/25 6

¶39

of proof of any illegality, the applicant is not entitled to get any relief and both the points are ensured against the applicant. The applicant may approach the defendant in writing to repay the loan within a reasonable time. In the event of such application, the defendant may consider request liberally before proceeding further in the securitization measure.

¶40

Hence it is ordered:-

¶41

ORDER

¶42

In view of the foregoing reasons, this SA, being devoid

¶43

of any merit, is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.

¶44

(Dictated to my Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 29^th day of May, 2026).

¶45

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶46

SA 379/25 7

¶47

Documents on the part of the applicant

¶48

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
A1	30.03.2022	True copy of the notice issued by the 1^st respondent to the applicant.
A2	04.03.2025	True copy of the petition along with affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent as MC 647/2025 before the CJM Court, Kollam.
A3	21.04.2025	True copy of the Order in MC No.647/2025 on the file of CJM Court, Kollam.
A4	14.05.2025	True copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner showing the MC No.623/2025.
A5	29.05.2024	Request submitted by the applicant to the 2^ndrespondent.

¶49

Documents on the part of the defendant

¶50

Annexures	Dates	Particulars of documents
B1	06.08.2018	True copy of the CERSAI Certificate

¶51

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶52

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶53

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶54

Dated the 29^th day of May, 2026

¶55

SA No.379/2025

¶56

Between

¶57

Shihabudeen, S/o.Badarudeen, Charuvila Veedu, Kilikolloor P.O., Pallavi Nagar – 34, Punthalathazham, Kollam – 691 004. …Applicant.

¶58

And

¶59

The Authorised Officer, Axis Bank – RAC, 2^nd floor, Nihal Complex, Karamana, Trivandrum – 695 002 and another. …Defendants

¶60

F I N A L O R D E R

Shihabudeen v. Axis Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shihabudeen v. Axis 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

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Aby Abraham

RRaju Kalidoss versus Canara Bank

Sajan S versus Yes Bank

Vinod Kumar Gupta versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Marvel Metals Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Mr B S Girisha versus Dcb Bank Limited