Dismissed

James C v. versus Canara Bank

DRT25 Jun 2026SA/417/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged a sale notice issued under the SARFAESI Act, claiming the property was agricultural and exempt, and the reserve price was undervalued. The Debts Recovery Tribunal held that physical possession of the asset was already taken years prior and the claim regarding agricultural status is unsustainable post-lapse, dismissing the application as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice not adjudicated as sale did not materialize; Application dismissed with costs of Rs.30,000/-.

James C v versus Canara Bank — 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 25^th day of June,2026

¶4

Securitization Application No.417/2023

¶5

Between

¶6

Dr. James CV., S/o. Varghese, Mundampally House, Kanjirappilly, Kottayam. …Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

The Authorized Officer, ARM Branch, Canara Bank Building, Ernakulam South, Cochin-682 016. …Defendant

¶9

This Securitization Application having been heard on

¶10

20.05.2026 in the presence of Advocate M.R Gopalakrishnan Nair for the defendant and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶11

F I N A L O R D E R

¶12

This SA is filed by the applicant under S.17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to

¶13

SA/417/2023

¶14

¶15

as ‘the SARFAESI Act’) challenging the sale notice dated 30.06.2023 with prayer to set aside the same.

¶16

Brief facts of the case :

¶17

2.1. The applicant, being Managing Director of “M/s Sukhodaya Ayurvedic Pharmaceuticals and Hospitals”, Kanjirappilly, availed over draft facility of Rs.150 lakhs and credit facility of Rs.50 lakhs from the defendant for expansion of development of the hospital activities by creating security interest over the subject matter property.

¶18

2.2 Due to default in repayment loan account turned to NPA and the demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued by the defendant calling the applicant to repay the outstanding. An objection was raised by the applicant claiming the secured asset as agricultural property exempted under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

¶19

2.3 The defendant issued possession notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act to take symbolical possession of the secured asset which is impugned in SA No.263/2010. Due to noncompliance of the interim order the SA was dismissed.

¶20

2.4 The applicant specifically stated in the SA that physical possession of the secured asset including Ayurvedic medicinal

¶21

SA/417/2023

¶22

¶23

garden, factory building, raw materials etc. was taken on 23.06.2011 by advocate commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam. The applicant filed SA No.779/2012 before this Tribunal which was also dismissed.

¶24

2.5 The applicant filed WP(C). NO.362/2021 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala claiming compensation for the damage to his property which was subsequently withdrawn. The defendant issued sale notice dated 30.06.2023 fixing sale of the secured asset on 14.08.2023. It is claimed that the reserve price fixed was very low in comparison to the present market value of the said property. The applicant has also obtained valuation of the secured asset which is filed in the case as Annexture A5.

¶25

2.6 The applicant claims further that the sale notice is illegal, due to non-compliance of the statutory requirement and improper fixing of reserve price with a prayer to set aside the same.

¶26

3.1 The defendant filed written statement denying the averments in the SA, claimed interalia that the applicant suppressed issuance of DRC.No.3981/2013 as far back as on 05.09.2013. The applicant filed numerous cases before this

¶27

SA/417/2023

¶28

¶29

tribunal as well as before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, raising vexatious, unnecessary and untenable allegations.

¶30

3.2 The applicant challenged the measure of taking symbolical possession including the sale notice of the secured asset in SA No.263/2008 which was dismissed due to noncompliance with the interim order.

¶31

3.3 The applicant filed WP(C) No.3241/2010 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. The same was also dismissed due to noncompliance of the interim order. The applicant filed another writ application before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala bearing WP(c) No.4799/2012 claiming that the secured asset as agricultural land which was also dismissed. Physical possession of the secured asset was taken long back on 27.06.2012. The applicant challenged the same in SA.No.779/2012 which was also dismissed.

¶32

3.4 In the OA No.15/2011 filed by the defendant for recovery of the outstanding amount from the applicant. In the said OA final order was passed on 05.09.2013 and recovery certificate was issued.

¶33

3.5 The petitioner has also approached for One Time Settlement which was sanctioned vide letter dated 04.04.2015,

¶34

¶35

SA/417/2023

¶36

but the applicant did not comply with the same. Hence, the same was also rejected. The applicant filed writ application bearing WP(c) No.3621/2021 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, which was also withdrawn. The claim of the applicant is barred by the limitation. Hence, the SA may be dismissed.

¶37

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

¶38

i. Whether the securitization proceeding initiated by the defendant suffers from any illegality or irregularity?

¶39

ii. Whether the applicant is entitled to get any relief in this SA?

¶40

Points Nos.(i) &(ii)

¶41

In this proceeding, the applicant challenged the sale notice Annexture A4 issued by the defendant on 30.06.2023 fixing the sale date on 14.08.2023. The applicant claims under valuation of the secured asset and fixing the reserve price at a lower level which is not valid. Hence, he claims for setting aside the same. During argument stage the learned counsel for the defendant contented that the sale did not fructify and all the claims advanced in this case were raised in the earlier proceeding initiated by the

¶42

¶43

SA/417/2023

¶44

applicant from time to time. Physical possession of the secured asset is already taken on 27.06.2012. Now raising question regarding agricultural nature of the property is not sustainable. So also, secured asset is not agricultural land exempted under SARFAESI Act.

¶45

On careful consideration of the submissions of both sides, it appears that physical possession of the secured asset was already taken on 27.06.2012. The applicant filed SA before this forum in challenging the securitization measure on the ground of agricultural nature of the secured asset which was dismissed long back. Now raising the similar claim against the securitization proceeding, claiming the property as agricultural land is not entertainable after lapse of several years. So also, no material is available to establish the secured asset as agricultural land at the time of availing the loan. Rather materials on record indicate the applicant availed loan for expansion and development of Ayurvedic clinic over the secured asset. Hence the contention on this score by the applicant is not sustainable.

¶46

Since the sale in pursuance to sale notice Annexure A4 did not materialize, the applicant has no further cause of action to

¶47

SA/417/2023

¶48

¶49

proceed with the case nor there is any necessity to adjudicate the claim raised by the applicant against such sale notice.

¶50

Hence it is ordered: -

¶51

ORDER

¶52

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

¶53

of any merit, is hereby dismissed, with cost of Rs.30,000/- for filing vexatious case by the applicant, from time to time having no

¶54

valid and legal ground.

¶55

(Dictated to my steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 25^th day of June, 2026)

¶56

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶57

SA/417/2023

¶58

¶59

Documents on the part of the applicant

¶60

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-A1	..	True copy of the commission report filed in SA.779/2012.
Annexure-A2	..	True copy of photographs.
Annexure-A3	03.03.2021	True copy of the counter affidavit filed in WP(C) No.3621/2021.
Annexure-A4	30.06.2023	True copy of the sale notice.
Annexure-A5	07.07.2021	True copy of the valuation report.

¶61

Documents on the part of the defendant

¶62

Annexure-B1(a) 22.11.2010 True copy of the judgment in WP(C) No.32431/2010. Annexure-B1(b) 05.09.2013 True copy of the final order in OA.No.15/2011. Annexure-B1(c) 04.02.2015 True copy of the application. Annexure-B1(d) 04.04.2015 True copy of the sanction letter. Annexure-B1(e) 21.07.2023 True copy of the judgment in WP(C) No.3621/2021.

¶63

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶64

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶65

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶66

Dated this the 25^th day of June 2026

¶67

SA No.417/2023

¶68

Between

¶69

Dr. James CV., Mundampally House, Kanjirappilly, Kottayam.

¶70

…Applicant

¶71

And

¶72

The Authorized Officer, ARM Branch, Canara Bank Building, Ernakulam South, Cochin-682 016. …Defendant

¶73

F I N A L O R D E R

James C v. versus Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

James C v. versus Canara 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

Kabeer K versus Bank of Baroda

Amarchand Sathyapalan versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Jiju J Kandramattom versus South Indian Bank

South Indian Bank versus Ms Follow me Broadcasting limited liability partnership

Moly versus Kerala State Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Ansu K H versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.