Dismissed

Jainy Jenson v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRT20 Feb 2026SA/493/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application seeking to set aside the demand notice, possession notice, and judicial order under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act. It held that the defendants substantially complied with statutory requirements and the filing of documents.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed; no order as to costs.

Jainy Jenson versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 20^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 493 of 2025

¶6

Between

¶7

Jainy Jenson, W/o. Jenson Paul, Maliakal House, 10 F,

¶8

Parthenon Apartments,

¶9

Marottichodu, Edapally, Ernakulam – 682 024.

¶10

Babu Joseph, S/o. Paily Joseph, 23-521, Maliakel House,

¶11

Rainbow Garden, Unichira,

¶12

Thaikavu Road,

¶13

Thrikkakara North,

¶14

Ernakulam – 682 033.

¶15

Jenson Paul, S/o. M.P. Paul, Maliakel House, 10 F, Parthenon Apartments, Marottichodu, Edapally, Ernakulam – 682 024.

¶16

Boban Joseph, S/o. Joseph M.C. Maliakel House, Rose Gardens, Chunangamvely, Vazhakulam, Ernakulam – 682 112.

¶17

Moly Boban, W/o. Boban Joseph, Maliakel House, Rose Gardens, Chunangamvely, Vazhakulam, Ernakulam – 682 112.

¶18

SA No.493 of 2025

¶19

Thyparambil Joseph Chacko, S/o. Joseph, Thaiparambil, Chunangamveli, Erumathala, Vazhakulam, Ernakulam 683112.

¶20

--- Applicants

¶21

And

¶22

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 40/9702-UA, Kanaka Damodar, Veekshanam Road, M.G. Road, Ernakulam, Kochi 682 035,

¶23

Rep. by its Authorized Officer.

¶24

Authorized Officer, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 40/9702-UA, Kanaka Damodar, Veekshanam Road, M.G. Road, Ernakulam, Kochi 682 035.

¶25

--- Defendants

¶26

This Securitization Application coming on 16.02.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. S. Shiv Shankar, Counsel appearing for the Applicants and Mr. Philip T. Varghese, Advocate appearing for the defendants and upon hearing arguments of learned Counsels for both the parties and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

This Securitisation Application was filed on 18.07.2025 seeking to set aside Annexure-A1 demand notice, A2 possession notice, A4 order in MC No.169/2025 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs) Ernakulam and A5 Advocate Commissioner’s notice.

¶29

The 2nd applicant availed various credit facilities to a total sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- as mentioned in Annexure-A1 demand notice from the 1st defendant bank. The applicants 1 and 3 to 6 stood as guarantors to the aforesaid credit facilities. The applicants 3 and 5 have created equitable mortgage over their immovable properties as the collateral security for the availment of the aforesaid credit facilities by deposit of their title deeds in favour of the 1st defendant bank.

¶30

Page 2 of 9

¶31

SA No.493 of 2025

¶32

Since the applicants defaulted in repayment of the outstanding loan due, the loan accounts came to be classified as Non-Performing Asset on 19.12.2023. Annexure-A1 demand notice dated 13.3.2024 was issued to the applicants 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 applicants neither sent any objection/representation to the demand notice nor did they clear off their liability due to the defendant bank.

¶33

Since the applicants failed to respond to the terms of the demand notice, Annexure-B4 Possession Notice dated 03.08.2024 was issued in respect of the secured assets for symbolically taking physical possession of the secured assets.

¶34

Thereafter, the defendants approached the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam and filed Annexure-A3 application and affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Annexure-A4 Order dated 07.04.2025 came to be passed in MC No.169/2025 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued notice dated 04.06.2025 Annexure-A5 to the applicants informing them that he would take physical possession of the secured assets on or after expiry of 14 days from the date of issuance of the notice. The applicants having aggrieved against the above measures filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

¶35

The counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that item No.1 of the secured assets is the agricultural property and that the demand notice does not contain the details on which loan account became Non-Performing Asset, interest charged and the total outstanding amount and that applicants have not executed any documents for creating mortgage over the properties by depositing the title deeds.

¶36

The counsel for the applicants submitted further that possession notices were not issued in accordance with the form provided in Appendix-IV of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 and that possession notices were not affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured assets and that possession notices were not published in two leading newspapers and that the applicants are not wilful defaulters and that Annexure-A3 affidavit does not contain the statutory mandate stipulated in Clauses (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 and that Annexure-A4 order was not passed within the period of 30 days from the date of filing of Annexure-A3 and that Annexure-A4 order is illegal and that outstanding amount as on the date of filing of Annexure-A3 is not stated and that the payments made by the applicants after issuance of

¶37

Page 3 of 9

¶38

SA No.493 of 2025

¶39

Annexure-A1 demand notice has not been stated in Annexure-A3 application and affidavit and that therefore, SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶40

The counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that since the applicants defaulted in making repayment of the outstanding loan due, their loan accounts were classified as Non-Performing Asset as per RBI guidelines and that they did not send any objection/ representation to the demand notice and that applicants 1 and 3 have deposited their title deeds pertaining to their immovable properties with intention to create mortgage over the same and that all the details in respect of availment of credit facilities and outstanding amount and the description of the secured assets are mentioned in Annexure-A1 demand notice.

¶41

The counsel appearing for the defendants submitted further that item No.1 of the secured assets is not an agricultural property and that there are buildings in the property and that payments made after issuance of Annexure-A1 demand notice is grossly insufficient to clear the liability and that non mentioning of the above payment in Annexure-A3 could not have caused any prejudice to the applicants and that Annexure-A4 order was not passed within 30 days from filing of Annexure-A3 is due to the administrative reasons and that it could not have caused any prejudice to the applicants and that therefore, SA may be dismissed with cost to the defendants.

¶42

A perusal of Annexure-A1 demand notice shows that all the details with regard to availment of the credit facilities and creation of security interest over the immovable properties and description of the properties, commission of default in repayment of the outstanding loan due and date of classification of loan account as Non-Performing Asset, has been furnished. The default in repayment of the outstanding loan due is admitted in the SA. They did not send any objection/ representation to the demand notice. Therefore, the applicants are estopped now from contending that demand notice does not contain requisite details and that they are not wilful defaulters.

¶43

No documents has been produced by the applicants in order to prove their contention that item No.1 of the secured assets is agricultural property. The applicants 1 and 3 having voluntarily deposited their title deeds with intention to create security interest over the immovable properties in favour of the 1st defendant bank are not entitled to contend now that they have not deposited the title deeds with intention to create mortgage.

¶44

Annexure-B4 possession notice was issued on 03.08.2024. No challenge was made against the possession notices within a period of

¶45

Page 4 of 9

¶46

SA No.493 of 2025

¶47

45 days from the date of issuance of the notice. The applicants filed SA on 18.07.2025. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled to raise any contention with regard to issuance, publication and affixture of the possession notices. However, the defendants have produced Annexure-B5 to B9 in order to show that possession notices were published in two leading newspapers one in Times of India edition dated 07.08.2024 and another in Mangalam edition dated 07.08.2024 (vernacular language) and that possession notices were affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured asset.

¶48

Annexure-B10 and B11 which are copies of ID based search reports produced by the defendants shows that security interest in respect of the secured assets has been registered with the Central registry.

¶49

A perusal of Annexure-A3 affidavit shows that all the statutory requirements contemplated under Clauses (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 has been substantially complied with by the defendants and that only one requirement with regard to payments made by the applicants after issuance of the demand notice has not been complied with. A perusal of Annexure-A8 to A10 statement of accounts shows that the payments made by the applicants after issuance of Annexure-A1 demand notice has not been mentioned in Annexure-A3. However, in Annexure-A3 it is averred that the respondents failed to discharge their liability. There is no averment that the respondents failed to make any payment after receipt of the demand notice. Hence, it is evident that there is no wilful suppression of the fact with regard to payments made by the applicants after issuance of Annexure-A1. But there is an omission on the part of the defendants to mention the same in Annexure-A3.

¶50

In Tulsi Rocks Pvt. Ltd. and Ors Vs. Bank of India and Ors. [MANU/TL/0034/2019] the Hon'ble High Court of State of Telungana has held as follows:

¶51

“wherever this Court finds that the parameters indicated in Clauses (i) to (ix) of the first proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act are broadly complied with, the Court is bound to invoke the doctrine of ‘substantial compliance.’ It must be remembered that Clauses (i) to (ix) of the first proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act merely provide the form in which the essential averments for an application under Section 14 of the Act are to be made. Therefore, what is important, is the substance and not the form.”

¶52

Page 5 of 9

¶53

SA No.493 of 2025

¶54

In the present case on hand, apart from non-mentioning of payment made by the applicants after issuance of Annexure-A1 demand notice all other requirements contemplated u/s 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 has been substantially complied with by the defendants in respect of filing of Annexure-A3 application and affidavit. Therefore, the submission of the counsel for the applicants that Annexure-A3 is defective since it does not contain the statutory mandate stipulated under Clauses (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002, does not hold good.

¶55

Annexure-A3 application and affidavit was filed in MC No.169/2025 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam on 20.01.2025. Annexure-A4 order was passed on 07.04.2025. Admittedly, the above order was passed beyond the prescribed period of 30 days or 60 days as the case may be. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Bright Vs. District Collector & others [2020 KHC 6633] as follows:

¶56

“the proviso to the provisions of Sec.14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is only directory and not mandatory. Further, the petitioners have not pointed out in their affidavit filed along with these petitions as to what prejudice would cause to them on account passing of Annexure-A7 order beyond the stipulated period of 60 days”.

¶57

As per the dictum laid down in the above judgment, passing Annexure-A4 order beyond the prescribed or stipulated period could not have caused any prejudice to the applicants in any manner. To put it in other words, the applicants would have benefitted because of passing of the above order belatedly. Otherwise, they would have faced their dispossession of the secured assets at the earliest point of time. Therefore, this Tribunal does not find any merit in the submission of the counsel for the applicants.

¶58

A perusal of Annexure-A4 order shows that the learned Additional Chief Judicial 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, appointed Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. This Tribunal does not find any infirmity or procedural irregularity in the above order.

¶59

Page 6 of 9

¶60

SA No.493 of 2025

¶61

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

¶62

Resultantly, S.A No.493 of 2025 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶63

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20^th day of February, 2026.

¶64

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 7 of 9

SA No.493 of 2025

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

¶69

Sl.	Date	Particulars
No.
1.	13.03.2024	True copy of the demand notice to the applicants.	issued	Annexure-A1
2.	03.08.2024	True copy of the possession issued to the applicants.	notice	Annexure-A2
3.	20.01.2025	True copy of the application alo affidavit in MC No.169/2025 bef Additional Chief Judicial Ma Court (MPs/MLAs)Ernakulam.	ng with ore the gistrate	Annexure-A3
4.	07.04.2025	True copy of the Order i No.169/2025 before the Ad Chief Judicial Magistrate (MPs/MLAs)Ernakulam.	n MC ditional Court	Annexure-A4
5.	04.06.2025	True copy of the notice issued Advocate Commissioner	by the	Annexure-A5
6.	04.06.2025	True copy of the e-mail		Annexure-A6
7.	09.06.2025	True copy of the letter sent defendants	by 1^st	Annexure-A7
8.	---	True copy of the account stat with respect to loan No.0592TL0100000505.	ements A/c	Annexure-A8
9.	---	True copy of the account stat with respect to loan No.0592TL0100000512.	ements A/c	Annexure-A9
10,	---	True copy of the account stat with respect to loan No.7513629896	ements A/c	Annexure-A10

¶70

List of documents filed by the defendants along with the written statement

¶71

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	16.06.2025	True copy of the e-mail sent by the 1^st defendant.	Annexure-B1
2.	13.03.2024	True copy of demand notice	Annexure-B2
3.	---	True copy of the consignment track report of notice addressed to the applicants.	Annexure-B3

¶72

Page 8 of 9

¶73

SA No.493 of 2025

¶74

4.	03.08.2024	True copy of the possession notice issued by the defendants.	Annexure-B4
5.	---	True copy of the possession notice affixed in the premises of item No.2 property of the applicants.	Annexure-B5
6.	---	True copy of the possession notice affixed in the premises of item No.3 property ofthe applicants.	Annexure-B6
7.	07.08.2024	True copy of possession notice published in Times of India by the defendants.	Annexure-B7
8.	07.08.2024	True copy of possession notice published in Mangalam Malayalam daily,Kochiedition.	Annexure-B8
9.	07.08.2024	True copy of possession notice published in Mangalam Malayalam daily,Thrissuredition.	Annexure-B9
10.	09.12.2024	True copy of CERSAI Security Interest id Based Search report of Asset ID 200050658768.	Annexure-B10
11.	09.12.2024	True copy of CERSAI Security Interest id Based Search report of Asset ID 200064431449.	Annexure-B11

¶75

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶76

Mj/

¶77

Page 9 of 9

Jainy Jenson v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jainy Jenson v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thanooja Kappil versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus M/s Singla Trading Company

Icici Bank Limited versus Satwant Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Amit Doda

Punjab National Bank versus Sampuran Singh

Ms Balya Cements Pvt. Ltd. versus Canara Bank