Dismissed

Sebastian Sabu v. Indian Bank

DRT25 May 2026SA/470/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application seeking to set aside the possession notice. The Tribunal held the applicant was time-barred in challenging the notice and failed to comply with the High Court order permitting a one-time settlement, finding no procedural defects in the bank's actions.

What did the court decide?

Reliefs sought in the Securitization Application to set aside the annexure-A7 order and allow one-time settlement were denied. No order as to costs.

Sebastian Sabu versus Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 25th DAY OF MAY, 2026

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 470 of 2025

¶6

Between

¶7

Sebastian Sabu, S/o Samuel, 23/110, Puliyampally, Saudi, Mundamveli P.O, Ernakulam-682 507.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

Indian Bank, Kochi Branch, Palace Road, Mattancherry, Ernakulam-682 002. Represented by its Authorized Officer.

¶11

--- Defendants

¶12

This Securitization Application coming on 16.03.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ms. Benedicta Vembly, Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. Sasidharan Nair, Advocate appearing 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

SA No.470 of 2025

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Securitisation Application was filed on 16.07.2025 seeking to set aside Annexure-A7 Order in MC No.441/2025 and allow the applicant to make a one-time settlement for the outstanding Loan amount as per the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala’s Judgement delivered in WP(C) No.9694 of 2024 and to allow the applicant to recover the full costs.

¶16

The applicant availed home loan of Rs.6,00,000/- and business loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the defendant bank in the year 2015 and he availed a term loan of Rs.52,000/- in 2021 from the defendant bank upon creation of equitable mortgage over his immovable property as described in Annexure-A1 demand notice, by deposit of title deeds dated 01.11.2022 with the defendant bank.

¶17

Due to default in repayment of the outstanding loan due, the loan account of the applicant came to be classified as Non-performing Asset dated 02.10.2021 and demand notice Annexure-A1 was issued to the applicant and the guarantor who is his wife, calling upon them 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 his liability due to the defendant bank.

¶18

Therefore, the defendant issued Annexure-A2 possession notice dated 20.04.2023 for symbolically taking possession of the secured asset.

¶19

Thereafter the defendant approached the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam and filed Annexure-A6 application and affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Annexure-A7 Order dated 02.05.2025 came to be passed in MC No.441/2025 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued notice Annexure-A8 to the applicant and the guarantor informing them that he would take physical possession of the secured asset on 17.07.2025. The applicant having aggrieved against the above measures filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

¶20

The counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that issuance of the demand notice is illegal and arbitrary and that the defendant cannot proceed to take physical possession of the property without publishing the sale notice in two leading newspapers and that the defendant failed to comply with the direction of the Hon'ble High

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

SA No.470 of 2025

¶23

Court of Kerala passed in W.P (C) No.9694/2024 to permit the applicant to make one time settlement for the outstanding loan amount and that therefore, SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶24

The counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that since the applicant defaulted in repayment of the outstanding loan due, his loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 02.10.2022 and that though the applicant received the demand notice, he did not send any objection/representation to the demand notice and that possession notice and sale notice were published in two leading newspapers, one in Mangalam Malayalam edition and The Hindu Business Line English edition and that direction given by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala to remit an amount of Rs.15,000/- within a period of three weeks from the date of passing of the order and to make an offer for one tem settlement thereafter was not complied with by the applicant and that all the statutory requirements contemplated under the SARFAESI Act 2002 and the Rules made there under were complied with and that therefore, SA may be dismissed with cost to the defendant.

¶25

Though the applicant received the demand notice, he did not send any objection/representation to the defendant stating as to how the issuance of the demand notice is illegal and arbitrary. There is no specific challenge in the S.A in respect of issuance of Annexure-A2 possession notice and the sale notice. Though, Annexure-A2 was issued as early as on 20.04.2023, SA was not filed within a period of 45 days from the date of issuance of the possession notice.

¶26

The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala passed Annexure-A5 judgment directing the applicant to remit an amount of Rs.15,000/- within a period of three weeks from the date of passing of the order and to make an offer for one time settlement. The above order was not complied with by the applicant. Without compliance of the above direction, the relief sought for by the applicant to permit him to make a one time settlement for the outstanding loan due is untenable.

¶27

It is pertinent to mention that there is no specific challenge or contention with regard to filing of Annexure-A6 application and affidavit in MC 441/2025 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam as well as Annexure-A7 order passed in MC 441/2025. Without challenging the aforesaid measures, the mere challenge of Annexure-A8 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner is not sustainable.

¶28

A perusal of Annexure-A6 affidavit shows that all the statutory requirements contemplated under Clause (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 has been complied. A perusal of Annexure-A7 order shows that the learned Additional Chief Judicial

¶29

Page 3 of 5

¶30

SA No.470 of 2025

¶31

Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam after having perused the contents of the affidavit and the documents produced along with the affidavit and after having satisfied over the same, appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. This Tribunal does not find any infirmity or procedural irregularity in the above order.

¶32

The applicant has failed to prove his case so as to get the reliefs sought for in the SA. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that the applicant is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the SA.

¶33

Resultantly, S.A No.470/2025 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 on this the 25th day of May, 2026.

¶35

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 4 of 5

SA No.470 of 2025

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

¶40

Sl.	Date	Particulars
No.
1.	01.11.2022	True copy of Rule 13(2) Notice	Annexure-A1
2.	20.04.2023	True copy of Rule 8(1) Notice	Annexure-A2
3.	25.03.2024	True copy of pay in slip of Indian Bank deposited by the applicant	Annexure-A3
4.	19.03.2024	True copy of Order in WP(C) No.9694 of 2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala	Annexure-A4
5.	28.05.2024	True copy of Judgement in WP(C) No.9694 of 2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala	Annexure-A5
6.	----	Certified copy of MC petition along with Affidavit bearing No.441/2025 filed by the Defendant bank before Hon’ble ACJM(MP/MLA) Court,Ernakulam	Annexure-A6
7.	02.05.2025	Certified copy of Order appointing Advocate Commissioner	Annexure-A7
8.	03.07.2025	True copy of the possession notice sent by theAdvocate Commissioner	Annexure-A8

¶41

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

Mj/

¶43

Page 5 of 5

Sebastian Sabu v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sebastian Sabu v. Indian 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

Bank of India versus Ibnul Khayer

Bank of India versus Anisur Rahaman Biswas Prop of Ms Anisur Rahaman Biswas

Ms Gyamtso Regency Hotel Prop Pema Gyaltsen versus Punjab National Bank

Parveen versus Bank of Baroda

Him Agro Associates versus Punjab National Bank

Hem Raj versus Jogindra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.