Dismissed

Sajan S v. Yes Bank

DRT27 May 2026SA/382/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitization application under the SARFAESI Act, the Debt Recovery Tribunal held that the application is not legally sustainable for lack of measures under Section 13(4). The applicant sought to set aside a vehicle sale, but the Tribunal dismissed the suit, noting the proceeding remains maintainable only if Section 13(4) steps are taken.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application SA 382/2025 is dismissed without costs.

Sajan S versus Yes Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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 May, 2026

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.382/2025

¶5

Between

¶6

Sajan S, Aged 42 years, S/o. Sasidharan, Sajan Nivas, Karimulackal, Komalloor, Chunnakkara.P.O Alappuzha District, PIN – 690 505. …Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

The Authorized Officer, Yes Bank, 1^st floor, Puthuran plaza, Northern side, KPCC Jn, M.G Road, Kochi, PIN 682 011. …Defendant

¶9

This Securitization Application having been heard on

¶10

04.05.2026 in the presence of Advocate Mr. P.R Milton counsel for

¶11

the applicant and Advocate Mr. Viswanathan G for the defendants

¶12

and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶13

SA 382/2025

¶14

¶15

F I N A L O R D E R

¶16

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 filed this SA under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act praying to set aside the sale with some consequential relief.

¶17

Brief facts of the case :

¶18

2.1 The applicant availed loan of Rs.48,33,000/- from the defendant bank on 30.08.2023 to purchase a Bharat Benz lorry vehicle with a repayment tenure of 60 months ending on 22.09.2028.

¶19

2.2 It is claimed that the defendant has taken possession of the vehicle on 05.11.2024 by force without following due process of law.

¶20

2.3 The demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 06.03.2025 calling the applicant to repay an outstanding amount of Rs.48,59,237.88/- due on 28.02.2025. Before expiry of 60 months the defendant sold the vehicle which is illegal and not sustainable.

¶21

2.4 All the statutory requirements in putting the property for sale are not duly followed and the sale of the vehicle is totally illegal.

¶22

SA 382/2025

¶23

¶24

Hence, the applicant prayed to set aside the sale with some consequential relief.

¶25

3.1 The defendants filed written statement denying the averments and claimed interalia that after issuance of the demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, no measure u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was taken. In absence of the same the SA is not legally sustainable.

¶26

3.2 After availing the loan the petitioner did not repay the instalments and consequently the loan was classified as NPA on21.07.2024. The vehicle was not traced out in Kerala and the same was located in Gujarat on 09.11.2024. Possession of the vehicle was taken from Gujarat. The seizure report dated 11.11.2024 is produced as Annexure R2.

¶27

3.3 Petitioner challenged taking of possession of the vehicle in WP(C) No.43616/2024 before Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, which was dismissed on merit on 21.01.2025. The pre-sale notice was issued on 12.11.2024 vide Annexure R4 and the vehicle was sold on 05.03.2025. The demand notice was issued on 06.03.2025 inadvertently which was withdrawn. The defendant has not proceeded with the securitization proceeding. As per the terms and conditions of loan agreement, possession of the vehicle was taken and the same was sold. The amount realized was credited in the

¶28

SA 382/2025

¶29

¶30

loan account. Hence, the SA is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed.

¶31

From the respective case of the applicant and defendant,

¶32

the following points are emerged for adjudication in this case:

¶33

(i) Whether the sale of the vehicle by the defendant suffers from any illegality or defect or irregularity to intervene with the same?

¶34

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

¶35

FINDINGS:

¶36

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

¶37

Admittedly, the applicant availed the vehicle loan from the defendant and due to non-repayment of the loan possession of the vehicle was taken by the defendant on 24.11.2024. The applicant has challenged such taking of possession before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No.43616/2024 which was disposed by the judgment dated 21.01.2025.

¶38

Though, the defendant has issued a demand notice dated 06.03.2025 marked Annexure A1, no material is placed by the applicant showing taking of any of the measures u/s 13(4) or u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act by the secured creditor. The defendant claimed that the demand notice was issued inadvertently which was withdrawn and no further step was taken under provision of SARFAESI Act. Hence, the proceeding u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act is

¶39

SA 382/2025 5

¶40

not sustainable. The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant has sufficient force. In absence of any further measure u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act the Securitization proceeding u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act is not legally sustainable and maintainable. The demand notice cannot be challenged in the proceeding u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶41

Regarding taking of possession of the vehicle by the defendant and putting the same for sale as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement cannot be raised in this Securitization proceeding. The applicant can challenge the same in competent forum and this Tribunal is not the proper forum to adjudicate the claim. Merely because the defendant issued a postsale notice dated 05.05.2025 intimating balance amount in the loan account after adjustment of the sale proceeding, the same cannot be a ground to challenge step taken by the defendant in this forum under the provision of SARFAESI Act. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to get any relief to in this proceeding. Both the points are answered against the applicant.

¶42

Hence it is ordered:-

SA 382/2025

ORDER

In view of the foregoing reasons, the SA, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.

¶47

(Dictated to steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 27^th day of May, 2026).

¶48

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶49

SA 382/2025

¶50

¶51

Documents on the part of the applicant

¶52

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-A1	06.03.2025	True copy of the Demand notice issued by the defendant to the applicant.
Annexure-A2	05.05.2025	True copy of the post-sale notice to the applicant.
Annexure-A3	14.05.2025	True copy of the Notice issued by the RTO, Karunagappally to the applicant.

¶53

Documents on the part of the defendants

¶54

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-R1	..	Copy of the loan agreement.
Annexure-R2	11.11.2024	Copy of the seizure report.
Annexure-R3	21.05.2025	Copy of the judgment in Writ Petition No.43616.
Annexure-R4	12.11.2024	Copy of the pre-sale notice.
Annexure-R5	..	Copy of the sale confirmation issued to the successful bidder.
Annexure-R6	23.07.2025	Copy of the recall notice.
Annexure-R7	..	Copy of the Postal booking receipt.

¶55

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶56

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶57

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶58

Dated the 27^th May, 2026

¶59

SA No.382/2025

¶60

Between

¶61

Sajan S, Aged 42 years, S/o. Sasidharan, Sajan Nivas, Karimulackal, Komalloor, Chunnakkara.P.O Alappuzha District, PIN – 690 505. … Applicant

¶62

And

¶63

The Authorized Officer, Yes Bank, 1^st floor, Puthuran plaza, Northern side, KPCC Jn, M.G Road, Kochi, PIN 682 011. …Defendant

¶64

F I N A L O R D E R

Sajan S v. Yes Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajan S v. Yes 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

Canara Bank versus H P Trading Co. and Anr.

Sebastian Sabu versus Indian Bank

Parveen versus Bank of Baroda

Canara Bank versus M/S Vee Kay Chemicals

M/S K v Advertiser Agency versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Ms Swarraj International Ca versus State Bank of India