Dismissed

Thadiyampurath Hassan v. Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd. 1758

DRT16 Sept 2026SA/512/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application (SA) filed by the Applicant against Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Applicant challenged a petition filed under the SARFAESI Act for possession of secured assets, citing non-compliance with the agreement, un-mortgaged residential building issues, and charging of penal interest. The Tribunal found that the demand notice was duly issued and statutory requirements under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act were met by the Respondent, and no procedural illegality was found in the impugned orders regarding the Advocate Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application SA No.512 of 2026 stands dismissed. No costs awarded.

Thadiyampurath Hassan versus Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd. 1758 — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶4

PRESENT: Su. WILLYAHM, B.Sc., M.L. [DISTRICT JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER S.A No.512 of 2026

¶5

Between

¶6

Thadiyampurath Hassan, S/o Unni Hassan, Residing at Thadiyampurath house, Pazhedam, Karakunnu P.O., Manjeri- 676 123

¶7

--- Applicant

¶8

And

¶9

Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd, Perinthalmanna, No. 1758, Thachinganadam Branch, Thachinganadam P.O., Perinthalmanna Taluk, Malappuram- 679 325, Represented by its Authorized Officer.

¶10

--- Defendant

¶11

SA No.512 of 2026

¶12

This Securitization Application coming on 18.08.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ms. M.A Jinsamol, the counsel for the Applicant and Mr. John, the representing counsel 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

O R D E R

¶14

This Securitisation Application was filed on 24.07.2026 praying to set aside Annexure-A1 petition, Annexure-A2 order and Annexure-A3 Advocate Commissioner notice and to direct the defendant to regularize the loan account of the applicant and to realize the cost from the defendant.

¶15

The applicant and his wife Smt. Fathima Hassan availed a cash credit facility for an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- from the defendant bank on 29.03.2021 upon creation of equitable mortgage over their immovable properties comprised in survey Nos. 233/1-6 and 233/4 of Karakunnu Desom, Ernad Taluk, Malappuram District by deposit of title deeds with defendant bank.

¶16

Due to default in repayment of outstanding loan due, the loan account of the applicant came to be classified as Non-Performing Asset. Demand notice dated 18.11.2023 was issued to the applicant and the co-applicant calling upon them to repay the outstanding loan due along with accrued interest within the period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The applicant and his wife neither sent any objection / representation to the demand notice nor did they clear off their liability due to the defendant bank.

¶17

Therefore, the defendant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri and filed Annexure-A1 application and affidavit in MC No. 1393/2025 u/S. SARFAESI Act 2002. AnnexureA2 order was passed on 14.11.2025 appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure-A3 notice dated 15.06.2026 to the applicant and his wife informing them that he would take physical possession of the secured asset on 30.06.2026. The applicant having aggrieved against the aforesaid measures, has filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

¶18

The counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the request of the applicant to furnish a copy of statement of account was not considered by the defendant and that interest calculated by the defendant is not in terms of the agreement made between the parties and that the residential building situated in the property was never mortgaged with defendant bank and that the applicant is ready

¶19

Page 2 of 5

¶20

SA No.512 of 2026

¶21

to pay the amount due to the defendant bank and that penal interest has been charged against the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that therefore SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶22

The counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that since the applicant and the co-applicant defaulted in repaying the loan amount, the loan account was classified as NPA as per the RBI guidelines and that the entire property including the residential building has been mortgaged with defendant bank by deposit of title deeds and that copy of the account statement was furnished to the applicant and that interest and penal interest has been charged as per the terms of the loan agreement and that the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala passed in Annexure-B1 judgment directing the applicant to clear the over due amount was not complied with by the applicant and that there was no procedural irregularity in respect of the measurers initiated by the defendant and that therefore SA may be dismissed with costs to the defendant.

¶23

The applicant has himself admitted in the SA with regard to the default in repayment of the outstanding amount of the loan due. The applicant has also admitted in para 2 of the SA with regard to creation of equitable mortgage over the immovable property comprised in Survey Nos. 233/1-6 and 233/4 of Karakunnu Desom, Ernad Taluk, Malappuram District. Since the applicant has created equitable mortgage by depositing of title deeds the residential building situated in the land is also deemed to be mortgaged property.

¶24

The applicant has not produced any material before this Tribunal in order to prove his contention that the rate of interest and penal interest has been charged against the terms of the loan agreement entered into between him and the defendant bank.

¶25

Apart from the aforesaid contentions raised by the applicant, no contention or challenge has been made by the applicant in the SA with regard to Annexure-A1 application and affidavit and also Annexure-A2 order.

¶26

A perusal of Annexure-A1 affidavit shows that all the statutory requirements stipulated under Clauses (i) to (ix) to the first proviso of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been complied with by the defendant. A perusal of Annexure-A2 order shows that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri after having perused the contents of the affidavit and documents filed in support of the affidavit and having satisfied over the same passed order appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. This Tribunal does not find any illegality in Annexure-A2 order.

¶27

Page 3 of 5

¶28

SA No.512 of 2026

¶29

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

¶30

In the result, this SA 512/2026 stands dismissed. No costs.

¶31

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16^th day of September, 2026.

¶32

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Rn/

Page 4 of 5

SA No.512 of 2026

Application Schedule

¶37

Property having an extend of 8.22 Ares in Block No. 66 in Survey No. 233/1-6 and 8.20 Ares in Block No. 66 in Survey No. 233/4 Karakunnu Amsom and Desom, Eranad Taluk, Malappuram District as per Dopcument No. 7739/2024 registered before the Manjeri SRO.

¶38

Boundaries as per the Location Map

¶39

North : Private path way in possession of Safeer. South : Private path way. East : Property in possession of Babbiyyakutty West : PWD Road

¶40

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

¶41

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	---	Copy of MC No.1393/2025 filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri	Annexure-A1
2.	14.11.2025	Copy of order in MC No. 1393/2025 filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Manjeri.	Annexure-A2
3.	15.06.2026	Copy of the Advocate Commissioner notice issued by the defendant in MC No. 1393/2025	Annexure-A3

¶42

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

¶43

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	02.04.2024	Copy of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP (C) No.11767/2024	Annexure-B1
2.	30.06.2026	Copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP (C) No. 22061/2026	Annexure-B2

Su. WILLYAHM)

PRESIDING OFFICER

Rn/

Page 5 of 5

Thadiyampurath Hassan v. Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd. 1758

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thadiyampurath Hassan v. Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd. 1758

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

Union Bank of India versus Harjit Singh

Canara Bank versus Smt. Madhu Tandon

Punjab National Bank versus Baljinder Kaur

M S Arsh Enterprises versus State Bank of India

Alok Das versus Icici Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus K T Ramesh