Dismissed

Minikumari Santhamma Vikraman Nair v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.

DRT2 Jan 2026SA/543/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed a securitization application challenging proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It held that the requirement for a demand notice served on all applicants was met via postal proof, and deficiencies in a Chief Judicial Magistrate's affidavit did not warrant setting aside statutory proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Securitization application dismissed without costs.

Minikumari Santhamma Vikraman Nair versus Cholamandalam… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Dated this the 2^nd day of January, 2026

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.543/2024

¶5

Between

¶6

Minikumari Santhamma Vikraman Nair, Azhmvilakathu Veedu, Mariapuram P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, PIN – 695 122.

¶7

Ashoka Kumar, Santha Bhavan, Kulathoor, Uchakkada P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, PIN – 695 506.

¶8

Vikraman Nair, Vadakkethazhaki, Santha Bhavan, Kulathoor, Uchakkada P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, PIN – 695 506.

¶9

Santhamma Govindha Pillai, Vadakkethazhaki, Santha Bhavan, Kulathoor, Uchakkada P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, PIN – 695 506. …Applicants

SA 543/2024

And

Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Ltd., Regd. Office at Dare House, 2 NS C Bose Road, Parrys, Chennai, PIN - 600 001 Having Branch Office at: 2^nd Floor, Raja Commercial Complex, Opposite Akshara Offset Printers, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram, Represented by its Authorised Officer. …Defendant

¶14

This Securitization Application having been heard on 05.12.2025 in the presence of Advocate Mr. Dipu James for the applicants and Advocate M/s. T.P.Rashmy for the defendant and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶15

F I N A L O R D E R

¶16

Challenging the securitization proceedings initiated by the defendant 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 applicants/borrowers have filed this SA under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act praying to set aside all the securitization proceedings.

¶17

SA 543/2024

¶18

¶19

Brief facts of the case:

¶20

2.1 The applicants availed the housing loan of Rs.15,39,177/from the defendant on 30.06.2020 by mortgaging the subject matter property of an extent of 4.50 Ares along with a building thereon. The loan was serviced regularly till January 2024. But due to loss in business, the repayment could not be made on time. The applicants approached the defendant to give some breathing time to regularize the loan. But instead, they issued the demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 11.01.2024. It is claimed in the SA that no demand notice was served on the 2^nd applicant.

¶21

2.2 Subsequently the defendant initiated a proceeding under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The payment made by the applicants was not properly stated in the affidavit filed by the Authorised Officer, which vitiates the proceeding. In absence of proper affidavit, the order passed by the CJM is not sustainable. Hence the SA is filed praying to set aside the demand notice and the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner.

¶22

On the other hand, the defendant has filed written statement denying the averments and claimed inter alia that due to

¶23

SA 543/2024

¶24

¶25

default in repayment demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 11.01.2024. The same was sent by registered post to all the applicants by registered post with A/D. The relevant documents are produced. The Track Record produced in this case would indicate the service of the demand notice to all the addressees. The claim on this aspect is not sustainable. There is no error or irregularity in the proceeding under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. In absence of the same, the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

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

¶27

(i) Whether the securitization proceeding initiated by the defendant suffers from any illegality or defect or irregularity to intervene with the same?

¶28

(ii) Whether the applicants are entitled to get any relief in this proceeding?

¶29

FINDINGS:

¶30

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):-

¶31

Admittedly the applicants availed the loan from the defendant by creating security interest over the subject matter property. Due to default in repayment the securitization proceeding was initiated. The only question raised by the applicants in this

¶32

SA 543/2024

¶33

¶34

case is that the demand notice was not served on applicant No.2 namely, Ashoka Kumar. But the defendant has produced postal receipt showing issuance of the notice to the said applicant on 12.01.2024 vide RT236328748IN. The postal track report produced by the defendant would also show that the notice sent by R.P. was served to the addressee. The applicant has not produced any contrary evidence to deny the presumption drawn from such public documents. In absence of the same, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants has no force to give any relief to the applicants.

¶35

Regarding non-disclosure of deposit made by the applicants in the affidavit filed before the CJM, even if accepted as true, it is also not a valid ground to set aside the securitization proceeding. The intention of statute under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of the secured asset. It is the statutory obligation on the part of the CJM and his order is purely administrative in nature. But before passing the order it is required on the part of the CJM to apply mind to the documents produced by the secured creditor to ascertain whether the basic requirements in issuing the demand notice was complied. He has no jurisdiction to consider the case on merit. Here in this case the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has recorded

¶36

SA 543/2024

¶37

¶38

that the affidavit and the documents produced by the petitioner show that the respondents created security interest in respect of the secured asset in favour of the petitioner at the time of availing the loan and they failed to repay the amount even after the receipt of the statutory notice u/s 13(2) of the Act. The order was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by application of mind to the documents produced by the applicant secured creditor. No substantial prejudice was caused to the applicants due to omission to state the payment made by the applicants after issuance of the demand notice. In absence of proof of any illegality in the securitization proceedings, the applicants are not entitled to get any relief and hence both the points are answered against the applicants.

¶39

Hence it is ordered:-

¶40

ORDER

¶41

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

¶42

merit, is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstance without costs.

¶43

(Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 2^nd day of January, 2026.)

¶44

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶45

SA 543/2024

¶46

¶47

Documents on the part of the applicants

¶48

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-A1	25.06.2024	Petition filed under Section the SARFAESI Act before Court, Thiruvananthapuram.	14(1) of the CJM
Annexure-A2	25.07.2024	True copy of the Order of Judicial Magistrate Thiruvananthapuram	the Chief Court,
Annexure-A3		True copy of the Commissioner’s Notice.	Advocate
Annexure-A4	29.05.2024	True copy of the Account Sta	tement.

¶49

Documents on the part of the defendant

¶50

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-B1	11.01.2024	True copy of the Demand Notice along with its postal receipt and proof of delivery.
Annexure-B2	20.12.2024	True copy of statement of account pertaining to the loan availed by the applicants as on 20.12.2024.
Annexure-B3	25.01.2024	True copy of Board resolution of appointment of Mr. Suresh Kumar B. as Authorised Officer.
Annexure-B4	13.08.2020	True copy of Memorandum of deposit of Title Deed 720 of 2021 executed by Mini Kumari, Vikraman Nair and Santhamma.