DRT-II, Kerala dismissed an application challenging securitization proceedings initiated by a bank against a guarantor's mortgaged property, holding guarantor liability co-extensive with the principal debtor's.
Application dismissed with finding that applicant not entitled to relief; pending stay application closed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER
Dated this the 24th day of April, 2026
SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.48/2026
Between
AnilKumar K.S., Aged 54 years, S/o. Sudevan K.S,
Kurukkasseril House, Mudiyoorkonam Post, Pandalam P.O Pathanamthitta, District, PIN – 689 501. …Applicant
And
South Indian Bank,
SA 48/2026
2
Son of Kunjikrishnan, Partner of M/s. S.N Silks and sarees, and proprietor of M/s. R B Traders, is at market junction, KSRTC Road, Pandalam, Pathanamthitta 689 501.
This Securitization Application having been heard on
26.03.2026 in the presence of Advocate Ms. Shaniba counsel for the applicant and Advocate Ms. Varsha V Nair for the defendants and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:
F I N A L O R D E R
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 entire Securitization measures including the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the notice issued by the Advocate commissioner.
SA 48/2026
3
Brief facts of the case :
2.1 The applicant, being guarantor to the loan of M/s. S.N Stores, a Proprietorship concern, controlled and managed by respondent No.2. The applicant stood as a guarantor by mortgaging his property to secure the loan availed by the said proprietorship firm, M/s S.N Stores.
2.2 Due to default in repayment the 1st respondent issued a demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act calling upon the borrowers and guarantors to discharge the liability in various loans availed by the business concern. After receipt of the demand notice the applicant raised objection against the demand notice stating that he has no active role in the operation of the business nor he derived any financial benefit of the business. The proprietor of the business concern is intentionally attempting to shift the financial burden to him and asked the defendant bank to take actions against the actual responsible persons. The defendant issued a reply to the said objections on 14.03.2025 stating that all the borrowers/guarantors are jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding dues and hence the contention is not acceptable.
2.3 The defendant has approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act bearing M.C.No.584/2025 to take physical possession of the secured asset. An Advocate commissioner is appointed to take physical possession
SA 48/2026
4
of the secured asset, who issued notice on 06.01.2026 to take possession of the property of the applicant which is impugned in this SA. The applicant seeks relief to set aside the Securitization measures including the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the notice issued by the Advocate commissioner.
SA 48/2026
5
FINDINGS:
Point Nos.(i) & (ii):-
2 by creating security interest over the subject matter property. During hearing of the SA, learned counsel for the applicant would contend that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 can realize outstanding amount from the proprietor/ borrower and other mortgaged properties. The defendant Nos.1 and 2, instead of proceeding against proper person, are taking step to take physical possession of the property of the applicant only which is prejudicial. Hence, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 may be directed not to take any coercive step against the property of the applicant. She didn’t raise or point out any illegality or irregularity in the securitization proceeding.
SA 48/2026
6
exclusion of his property from the Securitization proceeding. The applicant and borrowers and the other guarantors are jointly and severally liable for the outstanding in the loan account. Hence, the SA, being devoid of any merit, may be dismissed.
In view of this statutory provision the liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. No material is placed by the applicant that, there is any different contract among the borrower and the guarantors. In absence of the same, the applicant cannot claim any exemption or exclusion of his property from the securitization proceeding initiated by the defendant 1 and 2 under SARFAESI Act. No other illegality or irregularity in such proceeding is raised or established by the applicant in this case.
SA 48/2026
7
Hence the applicant is not entitled to get any relief and both the points are answered against him.
Hence it is ordered:-
ORDER
(Dictated to steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 24th day of April, 2026).
[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER
SA 48/2026
8
Documents on the part of the applicant
| Annexures | Date | Particulars of documents |
|---|---|---|
| Annexure-A1 | 01.01.2025 | True copy of the Demand notice issued under Section 13(2) Act. |
| Annexure-A2 | 28.02.2025 | True copy of the reply submitted by the under Section 13(3A) of the Act. |
| Annexure-A3 | 14.03.2026 | True copy of the reply issued by the 1strespondent. |
| Annexure-A4 | 20.08.2026 | True copy of the petition filed by the 1strespondent bank under Section 14 |
| of the SARFAESI Act before the | ||
| learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, |
||
| Pathanamthitta, and numbered as M.C.No.584/2025. |
||
| Annexure-A5 | .. | True copy of the affidavit filed by the bank in support of the said Section 14 petition. |
| Annexure-A6 | 24.12.2025 | True copy of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, |
| Pathanamthitta, in M.C.No.584/2025 appointing an Advocate |
||
| Commissioner under Section 14 of the Act. |
||
| Annexure-A7 | 06.01.2026 | True copy of the notice issued by the Advocate commissioner pursuant to Annexture A6 order. |
Documents on the part of the defendants
| Annexures | Date | Particulars of documents |
|---|---|---|
| Annexure-B1 | .. | True copy of the statement of account with respect to the loan A/c. bearing NO.0337083000000152. |
| Annexure-B2 | 09.01.2026 | True copy of the order in |
| M.C.No.23/2026 before the learned | ||
| Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha. |
SA 48/2026
9
Annexure-B3 True copy of the Memorandum of deposit of title deed executed by the Applicant along with the 4th and 5th defendants in M.C.No.584/2025 of Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. PRESIDING OFFICER
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER
Dated the 24th April, 2026
SA No.48/2026
Between
AnilKumar K.S., Aged 54 years, S/o. Sudevan K.S, Kurukkasseril House, Mudiyoorkonam Post, Pandalam P.O Pathanamthitta, District, PIN – 689 501. … Applicants
And
The Authorised Officer, South Indian Bank, 2nd floor, TMJ Complex, MC Road, Ramanchira, Muthoor, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta, PIN 689 107. Ors. …Defendants
F I N A L O R D E R
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the securitization proceeding suffers from any illegality to warrant intervention?
Whether the applicant is entitled to any relief in this proceeding regarding his mortgaged property?
AnilKumar K.S.
The Authorised Officer, South Indian Bank
The South Indian Bank
Mrs. Anandavally P.R
Mr. Radhakrishnan C.K
Mrs. Halitha Soman
Sovan Kumar Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
