Dismissed

Ms Balya Cements Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank

DRT20 Feb 2026SA/55/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging securitization proceedings initiated by Canara Bank regarding multiple loans. The court upheld the NPA classification, the Section 14 possession order by the Civil Judge, and the validity of subsequent sales, rejecting claims regarding agricultural land status and notice deficiencies.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed, costs of Rs.30,000 awarded against applicants.

Ms Balya Cements Pvt. Ltd. versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2026

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.55/2024

¶5

Between

¶6

M/s.Balya Cements Private Limited, Represented by its managing director Haridas Krishnankutty, S/o.Krishnankutty, Regd. Office at No.29/730-10, Rarath House, Capital Krishna Apartments, 5^th Floor, Shoranur Road, Thiruvambady P.O., Thrissur – 680 022. Factory at No.V/302, Velur Chungam Post Thayyur, Thrissur – 680 601.

¶7

Haridas Krishnankutty, S/o.Krishnankutty, Rarath House, Peruvemba P.O., Palakkad – 678 531. Now residing at: Capital Krishna Apartments, 5^th Floor, Shoranur Road, Thiruvambady P.O., Thrissur – 680 022.

¶8

Smitha Haridas, W/o.Haridas Krishnankutty, Chullipparambil House, Merlin Garden Avenue No.3,

¶9

SA 55/2024

¶10

¶11

Nadathara, Thrissur – 680 751. Now residing at: Capital Krishna Apartments, 5^th Floor, Shoranur Road, Thiruvambady P.O., Thrissur – 680 022. 4. Vinodhini Sreedharan, W/o.Sreedharan, Chullipparambil House, Merlin Garden Avenue No.3, Nadathara, Thrissur – 680 751. …Applicants And 1. Canara Bank, Thrissur Round South Main Branch, Sree Karthiayani Manor, Pazhayanadakavu, Thrissur, Thrissur District – 680 001, Represented by its Manager. 2. The Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, Thrissur Round South Main Branch, Sree Karthiayani Manor, Pazhayanadakavu, Thrissur, Thrissur District – 680 001. …Defendants 3. Biya A., 11/284, Vasantham, Chandranagar E Sector, Chandranagar, Marutharoad, Palakkad, Kerala – 678 007. 4. Mullath Rajagopal, S/o.V.R.Panicker, Ambady, College Road, Thrissur – 680 005.

¶12

SA 55/2024

¶13

¶14

Kabeer Chozhiyattel Nariyampully, C/o.Mohammedali, Chamdipurath, Chozhiyattel, Kunnathayil, Marancheri, Ponnani, Marancheri – 679 581. …Additional defendants

¶15

[Additional 3^rd defendant was impleaded as per order dated 09.10.2024 in IA No.3847/2024 and additional defendants 4 & 5 were impleaded as per order dated 28.11.2025 in IA No.1018/2025]

¶16

This Securitization Application having been heard on

¶17

02.01.2026 in the presence of Advocate Sri.P.Shrihari for the applicants and Advocate Sri. M.R.Gopalakrishnan Nair for defendants 1 and 2 and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶18

F I N A L O R D E R

¶19

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 borrowers and guarantors have filed this SA under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act seeking relief to set aside the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner in Crl.MP No.11707/2023 for taking physical possession of the secured assets. By way of amendment, the applicant sought to set aside the sale of the secured asset held by the defendant bank.

¶20

SA 55/2024

¶21

¶22

Brief facts of the case :

¶23

2.1 The 1^st applicant, a registered company, availed the following facilities from the defendant bank and applicants 2 to 4 stood as guarantors for the loans availed by the company:

¶24

Sl.No.	Nature of loan	Date of sanction	Amount
1.	Term loan	28.11.2019	Rs.3,00,00,000/-
2.	GECL term loan	06.08.2020	Rs.54,30,000/-
3.	Term loan	24.09.2021	Rs.1,25,00,000/-
4.	FITL	30.06.2021	Rs.29,36,000/-
5.	FITL	30.06.2021	Rs.37,07,000/-
6.	Working capital	07.03.2022	Rs.1,80,00,000/-
	Total		Rs.7,25,73,000/-

¶25

So also, the applicants 2 to 4 in their individual capacity availed the following two loans:

¶26

Sl.No.	Nature of loan	Amount
1.	Kisan credit card loan scheme	Rs.3,00,00,000/-
2.	Canara mortgage loan	Rs.1,10,00,000/-
	Total	Rs.4,10,00,000/-

¶27

2.2 Due to non-repayment of loan as per the terms and conditions, the loans availed by applicants 2 to 4 in their individual capacity were classified as NPA on 29.11.2022 and the defendant issued demand notice on 20.12.2022 calling them to pay the

¶28

SA 55/2024

¶29

¶30

outstanding amount of Rs.4,16,97,637.20 within the statutory period of 60 days. The loans availed by the 1^st applicant company were also classified as NPA on 24.07.2023 and demand notice was issued on 27.07.2023 calling the applicant company and its directors and guarantors to repay the outstanding amount of Rs.7,06,04,593.51 within the statutory period of 60 days. After receipt of the demand notices, no representation/objection was raised by the applicants in respect of the claim made in the notices. Due to non-repayment of the claim amount, the defendant proceeded further in issuing the possession notice under S.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and filed application under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act bearing Crl.MP No.11707/2023 before the CJM, Thrissur to take possession of the secured assets.

¶31

2.3 The defendant bank proceeded to issue sale notices for e-auction of the secured assets on 14.12.2023 fixing the public auction on 24.01.2024 but the sale did not fructify. Thereafter fresh sale notice was issued on 26.08.2024 fixing the e-auction on 30.09.2024 in which a portion of the secured asset was sold to the 3^rd defendant. Again the defendant issued fresh sale notice dated 03.02.2025 fixing the sale on 25.02.2025 in which item Nos.2 and 3 properties were sold to defendants 4 and 5. The 4^th defendant did

¶32

SA 55/2024

¶33

¶34

not pay the balance 75% amount in respect of item No.2 property of the sale notice and hence the auction in respect of the same was cancelled. The 5^th defendant, highest bidder of item No.3 property, deposited the entire amount within the statutory period and sale certificate dated 07.02.2025 was issued to him. All the above proceedings including classification of the loans as NPA, issuance of the possession notice, steps taken for taking physical possession of the secured assets and taking of physical possession of some items of the properties with the assistance of Advocate Commissioner and the sale held during the pendency of the SA are challenged by the applicants in this proceeding.

¶35

2.4 The main contentions raised by the applicants in the SA

¶36

challenging the above measures are as follows:-

¶37

(i) Classification of the loans of the 1^st applicant and the loans of defendants 2 to 4 as NPA on different dates violates clause 4.2.7 of the RBI guideline, which states that classification is to be made borrower-wise and not facility-wise. In this case, six credit facilities of the 1^st applicant company to which applicants 2 to 4 stood as guarantors and two credit facilities of applicants 2 to 4

¶38

SA 55/2024

¶39

¶40

ought to have been classified as NPA on the same date which having not done, classification of NPA is illegal.

¶41

(ii) The securitization measure and issuance of demand notice by the defendant bank in respect of the agricultural properties is in violation of S.31(i) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶42

(iii) The possession notice issued by the defendant, having not followed all the statutory requirements, is illegal and hence the subsequent steps taken by the defendant in the securitization proceeding renders illegal.

¶43

(iv) The proceeding under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act initiated before the CJM to take physical possession of the secured assets is a nullity which violates clauses (i) to (ix) of the first proviso to S.14 of the SARFAESI Act. The aggregate financial assistance granted and the total outstanding having not stated in the declaration, the order passed by the CJM is not sustainable.

¶44

(v) The sale conducted by the defendant is in violation of the statutory provisions. There was no clear 30 days/15 days’ notice in respect of the sale held on different dates by the defendant. So also, the statutory

¶45

SA 55/2024

¶46

¶47

requirements in putting the properties for public auction are not duly followed. So also, the provisions contained in R.8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules being mandatory in nature, is not followed in this case in issuance of the sale notice. The sale took place during the pendency of the SA is invalid and void and the auction purchaser did not derive any title over the same. So also, the valuation of the secured assets is not taken keeping in view of the market value of the property which also vitiates the constitutional right of the applicants.

¶48

3.1 The defendants 1 and 2 contested the case by filing written statement denying the averments and claimed inter alia that the loans availed by the 1^st applicant company and the individuals were sanctioned on different customer ID and hence there is no illegality in classifying the accounts as NPA on different dates. The loans availed under different customer ID cannot be clubbed together and absolutely there is no violation of the guidelines issued by RBI in classifying the loans NPA.

¶49

3.2 All the statutory measures in issuing the demand notice

¶50

and possession notice were duly complied and relevant documents

¶51

SA 55/2024

¶52

¶53

are produced in this case showing compliance. Physical possession of the land and factory building in Sy.No.323/P and the property having an extent of 1.63 Ares in Sy.No.252/1 had already been taken in pursuance to the order passed by the CJM in a proceeding under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act and there is no illegality in such proceedings. In absence of any illegality the applicants have no right to challenge such proceeding.

¶54

3.3 After receipt of the demand notice, the applicants have not raised any dispute regarding quantum of amount claimed and description of the properties by submitting any objection/representation under S.13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act. Subsequently, they are estopped from raising such claim and hence the contention in respect of the symbolic possession of the secured assets is also not acceptable.

¶55

3.4 The sale held in pursuance to Annexure-A18 sale notice dated 26.08.2024 in respect of the property measuring 13.31 cents in Re-Sy.No.156/14 and 156/5 at a total consideration of Rs.72.25 lakhs cannot be challenged by the applicants in this forum. All the statutory measures are duly followed in selling the property. The reserve price was fixed based on the valuation report dated 06.07.2024 obtained from the approved valuer. The sale is

¶56

SA 55/2024

¶57

¶58

complete in respect of the said property and sale certificate has been registered. The applicants have no right to challenge the same in this proceeding.

¶59

3.5 Subsequently, the defendant issued another sale notice fixing the sale date on 30.09.2024 in respect of subject matter property but the sale did not fructify. In respect of the sale notice dated 03.02.2025 marked Annexure-A32, the sale in respect of item Nos.2 and 3 was held on the scheduled date of sale on 25.02.2025 at a bid amount of Rs.44.75 lakhs and Rs.35.25 lakhs respectively the properties were sold to the defendants 4 and 5 respectively. The sale in favour of the 4^th defendant was cancelled due to non-payment of the entire sale consideration amount. In respect of the sale held in favour of the 5^th defendant, entire consideration was received and sale certificate was issued to him on 27.05.2025. There is no illegality in such proceeding. The valuation report was obtained from the approved valuer and all the statutory measures as contained in R.9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules are duly followed.

¶60

3.6 The secured assets are not agricultural lands. The properties sold are not included in the certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer. The loans were sanctioned for business purpose

¶61

SA 55/2024

¶62

¶63

and construction of factory building. No material is placed at the time of availing of the loans that the secured assets were agricultural lands and exempted under the provision of the SARFAESI Act.

¶64

Based upon the respective contentions of both sides,

¶65

the following points emerged for adjudication in this case:

¶66

(i) Whether the securitization proceedings in respect of the subject matter properties suffer from any illegality due to classification of the loans as NPA on different dates?

¶67

(ii) Whether the steps taken in the securitization proceedings by issuing the demand notice, possession notice and measure taken under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act suffer from any illegality to interdict with the same?

¶68

(iii) Whether the subject matter properties are agricultural lands exempted under the provision of SARFAESI Act?

¶69

(iv) Whether the sale conducted during the pendency of the SA are valid and legal?

¶70

(v) Whether the applicants are entitled to get any relief in this case?

SA 55/2024

FINDINGS:

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):

¶75

Admittedly, the applicants availed various loans from the defendant bank and applicants 2 and 3 being the managing director and director of the 1^st applicant company and the 4^th defendant being the guarantor created mortgage to secure the loans of the company. The applicants 2 and 3 availed KCC OD loan and housing loan from the defendant bank in their individual capacity by mortgaging their own properties. It is also the admitted fact that different customer ID was allotted for the loans availed by the company and its directors in their individual capacity. Clause 4.2.7 of the RBI guideline speaks that the loans are to be classified as NPA borrower-wise and not facility-wise. The loans availed by applicants 2 to 4 in their individual capacity, having different customer ID, has no connection with the business of the company, cannot be treated as composite loans of the company. The contention regarding classification of the loans NPA on different dates is not legally sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Further, the applicants have never raised the issue of such classification of the loans as NPA after getting the demand notice from the defendant bank. Raising the question after taking of the measures as per the SARFAESI Act is purely an afterthought

¶76

SA 55/2024

¶77

¶78

with the intention to delay the securitization proceeding. Further, due to classification of the loans as NPA, no substantial prejudice is caused to the applicants in any manner and hence the contention on this aspect is not sustainable.

¶79

The defendant has issued demand notices marked Annexures-A1 and A2 to the borrowers and the guarantors. There is no dispute about service of the said demand notices. Due to noncompliance of the statutory requirements in repaying the claim amount, the defendant issued possession notice marked AnnexureB1(d) separately for the loans availed by applicants 2 to 4. All the relevant documents i.e., acknowledgement cards showing service of possession notice, affixture report and paper publication are produced in this case. The possession notice was not challenged by the applicants in time and raising the contention against the same in this SA is not legally acceptable.

¶80

In respect of the measure taken under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act before the CJM, some vague allegations are averred in the SA. It is contended that the declaration made by the Authorised Officer is not as per the statutory requirements and the total amount availed by the applicants and the outstanding on the date of filing of the application are not stated. The learned CJM

¶81

SA 55/2024

¶82

¶83

passed the order without applying his mind to the material placed and passed a stereotype order which is not sustainable. But on perusal of the affidavit marked Annexure-A10, it appears that all the details regarding the credit facilities availed by the applicants and the outstanding amount as on 05.12.2023 are stated. It is not a case that no affidavit was filed before the CJM. Requirement of the statute is specifically complied. No prejudice was caused to the applicants in any manner by such declaration. The learned CJM passed the order after perusing the affidavit and the documents placed on record which cannot be said as illegal.

¶84

The law is very well settled on the point that the order passed by the CJM in assisting the secured creditor in taking of possession of the secured asset is purely administrative in nature. He has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case on merit. It is only required that the CJM shall carefully peruse the materials placed before him and shall pass the order, for which he has statutory obligation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2023) 1 SCC 675 in the case of M/s.R.D.Jain and Co. v. Capital First Ltd. & others had held as follows:-

¶85

“8.1 …………Thus, we reiterate that the step to be taken by the CMM/DM under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, is a ministerial step. While disposing of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, no element of quasi-judicial function or application of mind would require.

¶86

SA 55/2024

¶87

¶88

The Magistrate has to adjudicate and decide the correctness of the information given in the application and nothing more. Therefore, Section 14 does not involve an adjudicatory process qua points raised by the borrower against the secured creditor taking possession of secured assets.”

¶89

In view of this ratio, if all the requirements under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act are duly complied with, it is the duty cast upon the CMM/DM to assist the secured creditor in obtaining physical possession of the secured asset.

¶90

The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the judgment dated 18.04.2022 in Writ Petition No.3950/2022 in the

¶91

case of Mogali Durga Devi & others v. Union of India & others, at paragraph 10 it is held as follows:-

¶92

“10. From the above, it is very clear that the respondent bank has clearly specified the total amount due as on 16.07.2021 including interest w.e.f. 17.07.2021, but failed to mention only about the outstanding amount due as on the date of filing of the application i.e. 27.01.2022. Mere non mentioning of the total outstanding amount due as on the date of filing of the application cannot be a ground to say that the respondent-bank has violated the mandatory requirements as provided in clauses (i) to (ix) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and also a ground to stall the entire proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, such as taking of physical possession of property on 09.02.2022 and on 16.02.2022.”

¶93

So also, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in

¶94

the judgment reported in 2019 KHC 3959 in the case of Tulsi

¶95

Rocks Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad & others v. Bank of India &

¶96

Anr., at paragraph 17 it is held as follows:-

¶97

SA 55/2024

¶98

¶99

“17. Therefore, 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.”

¶100

In view of the ratio, if the amount outstanding on the date of application is not stated, the order passed by the CJM cannot be said as illegal. So also, if the affidavit filed by the Authorised Officer is substantially complied, it does not cause any prejudice to the applicants and they have no right to challenge the same. Physical possession of some of the items of properties is already taken. No illegality is shown by the applicants to interdict with the same. Hence the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicants in challenging the demand notice, possession notice and the measure taken under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act are not legally sustainable. Both the points are answered against the applicants.

¶101

Point No.(iii)

¶102

In the SA, the applicants claim that item Nos.2, 4 and 5 in schedule-B of Annexure-A1 demand notice are agricultural lands. It is claimed in the SA in paragraph 10 that there are cultivations like paddy, coconut trees having 20 to 35 years old, mango trees

¶103

SA 55/2024

¶104

¶105

etc. over the same and hence the securitization proceeding is barred in view of S.31(i) of the SARFAESI Act. The applicants produced photographs of the same and a certificate dated 14.02.2023 issued by the Agricultural officer marked Annexure-A4. But on perusal of the certificate, it does not describe the entire properties as agricultural. It is generally stated that one Haridas, S/o.Krishnan Kutty is cultivating paddy, coconut, mango etc. over the property but the certificate does not indicate whether at the time of availing the loans, such properties were exclusively used for agricultural purpose, which is relevant for claiming exemption under S.31(i) of the SARFAESI Act. No such evidence is placed on record.

¶106

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2023 KHC 6012 in the case of K.Sreedhar v. M/s.Raus Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & others by referring its earlier two judgments reported in 2018 (4) SCC 793 and 2018 (18) SCC 252 in the case of ITC Limited vs. Blue Coast Hotels Ltd. & others and Indian Bank & another vs. K.Pappireddiyar & another, held as follows:-

¶107

“7.1 The purpose of enacting Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act has been considered by this Court in the case of Blue Coast Hotels Ltd. (Supra) in paragraph 36, which reads as under:

¶108

“36. The purpose of enacting Section 31(i) and the meaning of the term “agricultural land” assume significance. This provision, like many others is intended to protect agricultural land held for agricultural

¶109

SA 55/2024

¶110

¶111

purposes by agriculturists from the extraordinary provisions of this Act, which provides for enforcement of security interest without intervention of the Court. The plain intention of the provision is to exempt agricultural land from the provisions of the Act. In other words, the creditor cannot enforce any security interest created in his favour without intervention of the court or tribunal, if such security interest is in respect of agricultural land. The exemption thus protects agriculturists from losing their source of livelihood and income i.e. the agricultural land, under the drastic provision of the Act. It is also intended to deter the creation of security interest over agricultural land as defined in Section 2(1)(zf)35. Thus, security interest cannot be created in respect of property specified in Section 31.”

¶112

7.2 Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions, only in a case where the secured property is actually put to use as agricultural land and solely on the basis of the revenue records / Pattadar and once the secured property is put as a security by way of mortgage etc. meaning thereby the same was not treated as agricultural land, such properties cannot be said to be exempted from the provisions of the SARFAESI Act under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act. Applying the law laid down in the aforesaid two decisions to the facts of the case on hand and when no evidence was led at all on behalf of the borrowers that the secured properties in question were actually put to use as agricultural land and/or any agricultural activity was going on, the High Court has committed an error in applying Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act and quashing and setting aside the entire Possession Notice, Auction Notice as well as Sale etc.”

¶113

In view of this ratio, burden lies on the applicants to prove that the

¶114

properties were agricultural lands at the time of availing the loans and the same are exempted under the provision of the SARFAESI Act. The applicants, having failed to establish agricultural nature of property at the time of availing the loan and their intention to retain the properties as agricultural, the contention raised by the applicants cannot be accepted. Hence this point is answered against the applicants.

¶115

SA 55/2024

¶116

¶117

Point Nos.(iv) & (v):

¶118

The sale conducted by the defendant in respect of item No.2 property of an extent of 13.31 cents in the sale notice marked Annexure-A18 dated 26.08.2024 in favour of the 3^rd defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.72.25 lakhs and the sale conducted in respect of item No.3 property of an extent of 4.03 cents pursuant to sale notice dated 03.02.2025 marked Annexure-A32 in favour of the 5^th defendant for Rs.35.25 lakhs are under challenge in this case. The sale conducted in favour of the 4^th defendant in favour of item No.2 property in Annexure-A32 sale notice was already cancelled due to non-payment of entire consideration amount in time.

¶119

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that Annexure-A18 sale notice was served on the applicants on 03.09.2024 and the auction was conducted on 30.09.2024 and as such, there is no gap of 30 days between the date of service of sale notice and the date of sale. In respect of Annexure-A32 sale notice, there is only a gap of 20 days between the date of service of sale notice and the date of auction. It is also contended that R.8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules is not complied by the defendant bank and there is no clear 30 days sale notice on the

¶120

SA 55/2024

¶121

¶122

applicants. In support of his contention, the learned counsel referred a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2025 KHC Online 6814 in the case of M.Rajendran & others vs. M/s.KPK Oils and Protiens India Pvt. Ltd. & others .

¶123

On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant bank would contend that 30 days sale notice is required to be served only in case of first sale notice and there is no requirement to serve 30 days’ notice on the borrower or guarantor in case of subsequent sale. This position was clarified by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in W.P.No.2109/2020 in the case of Indian Overseas Bank vs. M/s.RA Pure Life Science Limited (2023 SCC Online TS 634).

¶124

On careful consideration of the submissions of both sides, admittedly there is clear 15 days’ gap between the date of service of sale notice and the date of sale as required under R.9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules. It is true that in case of first sale notice, it is necessary to serve the borrower a notice of 30 days for sale of the immovable secured assets as per the statutory provision contained under R.8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules. The proviso to R.9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules speaks that if sale of immovable property by

¶125

SA 55/2024

¶126

¶127

any one of the methods specified by sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 fails and the sale is required to be conducted again, the Authorised Officer shall serve, affix and publish the notice of sale of not less than 15 days to the borrower for any subsequent sale. In the judgement 2025 KHC Online 6814 (supra) in paragraph 169 at sub- clause (iv) it is categorically held that the embargo under Rule 9(1), that no sale, in the first instance, shall take place before the expiry of thirty days, would be reckoned from the date of issuance of the “notice of sale”, which would include both the public notice of sale in the newspaper and the service thereof to the borrower, whichever is later. From this conclusive finding of the Hon’ble Hon’ble Apex Court 30 days’ notice is required in case of first sale. It is not held that in case of subsequent sale, 30 days’ notice is required to be served on the borrower. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants on this aspect is not sustainable.

¶128

The defendant produced valuation report explaining the details of how the valuation of the property was obtained. Some valuation reports prepared for the properties at the time of availing the loans are produced by the applicants. It is well known that when mortgaged property is put to sale, it is difficult on the part of the secured creditor to procure a purchaser to bid the property. It is

¶129

SA 55/2024

¶130

¶131

true that at the time of obtaining loans, valuation of property is shown at a higher rate to obtain more loan from financial institutions which has no nexus with the market value. Merely based on the valuation reports obtained at the time of availing loans produced by the applicants, it cannot be said that the valuation report obtained by the defendant at the time of issuance of sale notice is erroneous.

¶132

If the applicants are sure that their properties would have fetched more value than the reserve price fixed by the defendant, they could have brought prospective purchasers to bid the properties. Raising the contention after completion of the sale is only with an intention to delay the securitization proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified the same in the judgement reported in MANU/SC/0974/2024 in the case of V.S.Palanivel vs. P.Sriram, wherein at paragraph 33.5 it is held that “ If the appellant was so confident that the subject property would have fetched a much higher price, nothing precluded him from identifying a bidder who was willing to offer a better price.” In view of this ratio, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants challenging the valuation report obtained from the approved valuer is not acceptable and the sale held by the defendant cannot be said

¶133

SA 55/2024

¶134

¶135

as illegal. All the statutory measures in putting the properties for sale are compiled by the defendant. In absence of any material illegality, interference with the sale is not warranted in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3727 in the case of Celir LLP vs. Sumati Prasad Bafna & others , wherein it is held as follows:

¶136

“218 . Any sale by auction or other public procurement methods once already confirmed or concluded ought not to be setaside or interfered with lightly except on grounds that go to the core of such sale process, such as either being collusive, fraudulent or vitiated by inadequate pricing or underbidding. Mere irregularity or deviation from a rule which does not have any fundamental procedural error does not take away the foundation of authority for such proceeding. In such cases, courts in particular should be mindful to refrain entertaining any ground for challenging an auction which either could have been taken earlier before the sale was conducted and confirmed or where no substantial injury has been caused on account of such irregularity.”

¶137

In view of the above, both the points are answered against the applicants and the applicants are not entitled to get any relief.

¶138

Hence it is ordered:-

¶139

ORDER

¶140

In view of the foregoing reasons and with the above

¶141

observation, the SA, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) payable by

¶142

SA 55/2024

¶143

¶144

the applicants to the defendant bank for causing unnecessary delay

¶145

in the securitization proceedings.

¶146

(Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 20^th day of February, 2026)

¶147

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶148

SA 468/2024

¶149

¶150

Documents on the part of the applicants

¶151

Annexures Date Particulars of documents

¶152

Annexure-A1		20.12.2022	Copy of demand notice issued by the 2^nddefendant.
Annexure-A2		27.07.2023	Copy of demand notice issued by the 2^nddefendant.
Annexure-A3		…	Photographs of properties.
Annexure-A4	&	14.02.2023	Certificate issued by the Agricultural
4(A)			Officer, Peruvemba and its English translation.
Annexure-A5		18.08.2017	Copy of final order passed by the Tribunal in SA No.188/2014.
Annexure-A6		26.10.2023	Copy of S.13(4) possession notice in respect of the loans availed by the 1^st applicant issued by the 2^nddefendant.
Annexure-A7		26.10.2023	Copy of S.13(4) possession notice in respect of the loans availed by applicants 2 to 4.
Annexure-A8		14.12.2023	Copy of sale notice issued by the 2^nd defendant.
Annexure-A9		05.12.2023	Copy of Crl.MP No.11707/2023 filed by the 2^nddefendant before the CJM, Thrissur.
Annexure-A10		05.12.2023	Copy of affidavit filed in Crl.MP No.11707/2023 filed by the 2^nd defendant.
Annexure-A11		28.12.2023	Copy of order in Crl.MP No.11707/2023 passed by the CJM, Thrissur.
Annexure-A12		12.01.2024	Copy of notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner in Crl.MP No.11707/2023.
Annexure-A13		…	Copy of proceeding in Crl.MP
			No.11707/2023 before the CJM,

¶153

SA 468/2024

¶154

¶155

Annexure-A14	10.06.2024	Thrissur. Copy of notice issued by the Advoc Commissioner in Crl No.11707/2023.	ate .MP
Annexure-A15	…	Copy of envelope which contained notice issued by the Advoc Commissioner.	the ate
Annexure-A16	10.06.2024	Copy of postal track report relatin Annexure-A14 notice.	g to
Annexure-A17	…	Copy of sketch prepared by surveyor.	the
Annexure-A18	26.08.2024	Copy of sale notice issued by the defendant.	2^nd
Annexure-A19	…	Copy of envelope relating Annexure-A18 sale notice.	to
Annexure-A20	…	Copy of postal track report relatin Annexure-A18 sale notice.	g to
Annexure-A21	…	Copy of page No.10 of No.54/2024.	OA
Annexure-A22	05.10.2021	Copy of hypothecation agreem produced along with OA No.54/202	ent 4.
Annexure-A23	14.10.2024	Copy of valuation report obtained the 1^stdefendant.	by
Annexure-A24	14.10.2024	Copy of sale notice issued by the defendant.	2^nd
Annexure-A25	…	Copy of envelope relating Annexure-A24 sale notice.	to
Annexure-A26	…	Copy of postal track report in resp of Annexure-A24.	ect
Annexure-A27	05.09.2019	Copy of valuation report obtained the 1^stdefendant.	by
Annexure-A28	10.09.2019	Copy of valuation report obtained the 1^stdefendant.	by
Annexure-A29	20.09.2019	Copy of valuation report obtained the 1^stdefendant.	by

¶156

SA 468/2024

¶157

¶158

Annexure-A30	07.11.2022	Copy of valuation report obtained the 1^stdefendant.	by
Annexure-A31	19.02.2022	Copy of valuation report prepared a Chartered Engineer.	by
Annexure-A32	03.02.2025	Copy of sale notice issued by the defendant.	2^nd
Annexure-A32(A)	…	Copy of envelope relating Annexure-A32 notice.	to
Annexure-A33	20.09.2019	Copy of valuation report obtained the defendant bank.	by
Annexure-A34	27.11.2024	Copy of MP No.12648/2024 fi before the CJM, Thrissur.	led
Annexure-A34(A)	…	English translation of Annexure-A34	.
Annexure-A35	06.12.2024	Copy of order of the CJM, Thrissur MP No.12648/2024.	in
Annexure-A36	07.03.2025	Copy of notice issued by the Advoc Commissioner in Crl. No.11707/2023.	ate MP
Annexure-A36(A)	…	English translation of Annexure-A36	.
Annexure-A37	07.03.2025	Copy of sale notice issued by the defendant.	2^nd
Annexure-A37(A)	…	Copy of envelope relating Annexure-A37 notice.	to

¶159

Documents on the part of the defendants

¶160

Annexure-D1(a) 20.12.2022	Copy of mortgage acknowle	deman lo dgement	d notice an cards.	pertai along	ning to with
Annexure-D1(b) 20.12.2022	Copy of d credit acknowle	emand card dgement	notice per loan cards.	taining along	to kisan with
Annexure-D1(c) 27.07.2023	Copy of company cards.	deman along	d notice with ac	issued knowle	to the dgement

¶161

SA 468/2024

¶162

¶163

Annexure-D1(d)	26.10.2023	Copy of possession notice issued 2^nddefendant.	by the
Annexure-D1(e)	…	Copy of photographs evidencing of possession notice.	affixture
Annexure-D1(f)	…	Copy of acknowledgement evidencing receipt of possession n	cards otice.
Annexure-D1(g)	01.11.2023	Copy of publication of possession Mathrubhumi daily.	notice in
Annexure-D1(h)	01.11.2023	Copy of publication of possession The Hindu daily.	notice in
Annexure-D1(i)	…	Copy of search details registration of security interest CERSAI portal.	showing in the
Annexure-D1(j)	05.12.2023	Copy of MC No.11707/2023 toget affidavit filed before the CJM Cour	her with t.
Annexure-D1(k)	14.12.2023	Copy of sale notice issued by defendant.	the 2^nd
Annexure-D1(l)	…	Copy of acknowledgement evidencing receipt of sale notice applicants.	cards by the
Annexure-D1(m)	…	Copy of photographs evidencing of sale notice.	affixture
Annexure-D1(n)	17.12.2023	Copy of sale notice publis Mathrubhumi daily.	hed in
Annexure-D1(o)	17.12.2023	Copy of sale notice published in T daily.	he Hindu
Annexure-D1(p)	26.08.2024	Copy of sale notice issued by defendant.	the 2^nd
Annexure-D1(q)	…	Copy of acknowledgement evidencing receipt of sale notice applicants.	cards by the
Annexure-D1(r)	…	Copy of photographs evidencing of sale notice.	affixture
Annexure-D1(s)	30.08.2024	Copy of sale notice publis Mathrubhumi daily.	hed in

¶164

SA 468/2024

¶165

¶166

Annexure-D1(t)	30.08.2024	Copy of sale notice published in The Indian Express daily.	New
Annexure-D1(u)	01.10.2024	Copy of letter of confirmation of issued by the defendant bank.	sale
Annexure-D1(v)	18.10.2024	Copy of sale certificate issued by defendant bank.	the
Annexure-D1(w)	22.05.2025	Copy of document No.938/2025.
Annexure-D1(x)	06.07.2024	Copy of valuation report obtained by bank.	the
Annexure-D1(y)	03.02.2025	Copy of sale notice issued by the defendant.	2^nd
Annexure-D1(z)	…	Copy of acknowledgement c evidencing receipt of sale notice by applicants.	ards the
Annexure-D1(aa)	…	Copy of photographs evidencing affix of sale notice.	ture
Annexure-D1(ab)	09.02.2025	Copy of sale notice published in Mala Manorama daily.	yala
Annexure-D1(ac)	09.02.2025	Copy of sale notice published in The H daily.	indu
Annexure-D1(ad)	27.02.2025	Copy of letter of confirmation of in res of item No.2 property.	pect
Annexure-D1(ae)	27.02.2025	Copy of letter of confirmation of in res of item No.3 property.	pect
Annexure-D1(af)	27.05.2025	Copy of sale certificate issued by the defendant.	2^nd
Annexure-D1(ag)	06.07.2024	Copy of valuation report obtained by bank.	the
Annexure-D1(ah)	05.12.2023	Copy of S.14 application filed before CJM, Thrissur.	the

¶167

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶168

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶169

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶170

Dated the 20^th February, 2026

¶171

SA No.55/2024

¶172

Between

¶173

M/s.Balya Cements Private Limited, Represented by its managing director Haridas Krishnankutty, S/o.Krishnankutty, Regd. Office at No.29/730-10, Rarath House, Capital Krishna Apartments, 5^th Floor, Shoranur Road, Thiruvambady P.O., Thrissur – 680 022. Factory at No.V/302, Velur Chungam Post Thayyur, Thrissur – 680 601. & 3 others.

¶174

And

¶175

Canara Bank, Thrissur Round South Main Branch, Sree Karthiayani Manor, Pazhayanadakavu, Thrissur, Thrissur District – 680 001, Represented by its Manager & 4 others …Defendants & additional defendants

¶176

F I N A L O R D E R

Ms Balya Cements Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Balya Cements Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank

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

Jainy Jenson versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited