Dismissed

Mohamed Haris Odayappurath v. Federal Bank

DRT27 Aug 2026SA/413/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application seeking to set aside a demand notice and possession notice. The Tribunal held the applicant failed to prove the notice was illegal and statutory compliance by the bank was sufficient.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mohamed Haris Odayappurath versus Federal Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 27^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2026

¶4

PRESENT: Su. WILLYAHM, B.Sc., M.L.

¶5

[DISTRICT JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶6

S.A No. 413 of 2026

¶7

Between

¶8

Mohamed Haris Odayappurath, S/o Ali Kutty, Odayappurath House, Kalpakanchery P.O. Malappuram – 676 551.

¶9

--- Petitioner/Applicant

¶10

And

¶11

The Federal Bank Ltd. (LCRD/Thrissur Division), Represented by Authorized Officer, 1st Floor, Chencherry Tower, Thrissur – Ernakulam High Road, Ollur, Thrissur 680 306.

¶12

--- Respondent/Defendant

¶13

This Securitization Application coming on 16.07.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Bijumon E.A, Counsel for the Applicant and Mr.Leo George Advocate 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:

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Securitization Application was filed on 11.06.2026 praying to set aside Annexure-A4 order and Annexure-A5 notice and to declare issuance of AnnexureA1 demand notice and possession notice is illegal and to award cost of the proceedings to the applicant.

¶16

¶17

SA 413/2026

¶18

The applicant and his wife Smt. Jaseera availed housing loan facility and personal loan facility from the defendant bank upon creation of equitable mortgage over the SA scheduled property by deposit of title deed with the defendant bank. Since, the applicant defaulted in repayment of outstanding loan due, the loan account of the applicant came to be classified as Non-performing Asset on 14.04.2024 Annexure-A1 demand notice dated 17.04.2024 was issued calling upon the applicant and the guarantor to repay the outstanding loan due within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice. The applicant neither sent any objection/representation to the demand notice nor did he clear off their liability due to the defendant bank.

¶19

Since the applicant failed to respond to the terms of the Demand Notice. Subsequently, the defendant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Malappuram and filed Annexure-A2 application and Annexure-A3 affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Annexure-A4 Order dated 10.11.2025 came to be passed in MC No. 1140/2025 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued notice dated 02.06.2026 Annexure-A5 to the applicant and the guarantor informing them that he would take physical possession of the secured asset. The applicant having aggrieved against the above measures has filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra

¶20

The counsel appeared for the applicant submitted that demand notice and possession notice was not served to the applicant and that possession notice was not published and that it was not affixed on the secured asset and that the amount paid was not properly credited and that interest rate shown in the demand notice contrary to the loan sanction agreement and that therefore SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶21

The counsel appeared for the defendant submitted that demand notice was served to the applicant and the guarantor and that possession notice was not issued and that therefore the reliefs sought for in respect of the possession notice is not sustainable and that the loan account of the applicant was classified as NPA as per RBI guideline and that objection for the demand notice was not sent by the applicant and that direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala passed in WP © No. 24215/2024 to remit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 and the balance over due amount in six equal monthly installments along with accrued interest and other charges was not complied with by the applicant and that all the statutory requirements stipulated under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been complied with and that the applicant is not entitled to get any relief sought for in the SA and that therefore the SA may be dismissed with costs to the defendant.

¶22

The applicant has himself admitted in Para 3 of the SA that the demand notice dated 17.04.2024 issued by the Authorized Officer office defendant bank to the applicant under the Act is produced herewith and marked as Ext.A1 . Hence, the contention of the applicant the demand notice was not served to him is absolutely false. The applicant having failed to send any objection/ representation to the demand notice is estopped now from contending that the classification of the loan accounts as NPA is violation of Section 2 (1) (O) of the

Page 2 of 5

SA 413/2026

SARFAESI Act, 2002. Moreover, the applicant has not specifically averred in the SA as to how the classification of the loan account as NPA is against the RBI guidelines.

¶27

Since, the defendant has not issued any possession notice for symbolically taking possession of the secured asset, the contention of the applicant that possession notice was not published and that it was not affixed on the secured asset, is unsustainable.

¶28

The applicant has not specifically averred in the SA as to how the interest rate charged is against the terms of contract. No material has been produced by the applicant in order to prove his contention that amount paid was not properly given credit.

¶29

The applicant has not averred in the SA as to whether the statutory requirements stipulated under Clause (i) to (ix) to the proviso of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has not been complied with in respect of filing of AnnexureA3 affidavit in MC No. 1140/2025. However, a perusal of Annexure-A3 affidavit shows that the aforesaid statutory requirements has not been complied with by the defendant.

¶30

On perusal of Annexure-A4 order shows that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malapopuram after having perused the contents of the affidavit and the documents produced along with the affidavit and after having satisfied over the same, passed the order appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. This Tribunal does not find any infirmity or illegality of the above order.

¶31

The applicant has failed to prove his case so as to get the reliefs sought for in the SA.

¶32

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

¶33

Resultantly, S.A No. 413/2026 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 27^th day of August, 2026.

¶35

[Su. WILLYAHM] PRESIDING OFFICER

Rn/

Page 3 of 5

SA 413/2026

List of documents filed by the Applicant

¶41

Sl.	Date	Particulars
No.
1.	17.04.2024	Section 13 (2) Notice.	Ext-A1
2.	22,08.2025	True copy of MC No. 1140/2025 filed before the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malappuram	Ext-A2
3.	22.08.2025	Affidavit filed along with MC 1140/2025 before the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malappuram	Ext-A3
4.	10.11.2025	Order in MC 1140/2025 by the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malappuram	Ext-A4
5.	02.06.2026	Advocate commission notice	Ext-A5
6.	05.07.2024	Judgment in WP © 24215/2024	Ext-A6

¶42

List of documents filed by the Defendant

¶43

Sl.	Date	Particulars
No.
1.	24.02.2025	Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in RP No. 1090/2024	Ext-B1
2.	03.12.2025	Notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner together with true English translation thereof.	Ext-B2
3.	22.08.2025	Notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner	Ext-B3
4.	--	Certified extract of Federal NRI Housing loan Personnel Loan (Asset Guard) facility	Ext-B4
		of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- availed by the applicant and his wife from the defendant

¶44

Page 4 of 5

¶45

¶46

		SA 413/2026
	bank together with a worksheet (Ac No. 17047300001411)
5.	Certified extract of Federal personnel loan (Asset Guard) facility of Rs. 8,72,322/- availed by the applicant and his wife from the defendant bank together with a worksheet (Ac No. 17047600002549)	Ext-B5

[Su. WILLYAHM]

PRESIDING OFFICER

Rn/

Page 5 of 5

Mohamed Haris Odayappurath v. Federal Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mohamed Haris Odayappurath v. Federal 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

Icici Bank Limited versus Shilpy

Bank of India versus Sh. Hardev Singh

Bank of India versus Amarjit Kaur

Santosh Kumari versus Central Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mokksh

Ms Tamanna Enterprises versus Indian Bank