Dismissed

Amrutha Foods v. Canara Bank

DRT19 Jan 2026SA/559/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application challenging the classification of loan accounts as NPA and recovery measures under SARFAESI Act 2002, finding the borrowers in default and statutory requirements fully complied with.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

What the court decided

Amrutha Foods versus Canara Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 19^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 559 of 2025

¶6

Between

¶7

M/s. Amrutha Foods, 38/1964, Vadakedathkandy House, Edakkad P.O., Kozhikode 673 005, Represented by its Proprietor Umesh V.K.

¶8

Umesh V.K., S/o. Ashokan V.K. Vadakedathkandy House Edakkad P.O., Kozhikode 673 005.

¶9

--- Applicants

¶10

And

¶11

The Canara Bank, Mavoor Road Branch, 1^st Floor, Kannamkandy Chambers, Near Arayidathpalam, Mavoor Road, Puthiyara, Kozhikode 673 001, rep. by its Authorized Officer.

¶12

The Canara Bank, ARM Branch, near Ruchi Bhavan, Mavoor Road, Kozhikode 673001, Rep. by its Branch Manager.

¶13

--- Defendants

¶14

SA No.559 of 2025

¶15

This Securitization Application coming on 16.12.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. N.K. Santh Kumar, Counsel appearing for the Applicants and Ms. Keerthi K. Narayan, Counsel 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:

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This Securitisation Application was filed on 18.08.2025 seeking to declare that classification of the account as NPA, issuance of Annexure-A2 notice, Annexure-A3 application, Annexure-A4 order of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Kozhikode and Annexure-A5 and A7 notices issued by the Advocate Commissioner are illegal and unsustainable and quash the same and to direct the defendants to pay the entire costs of this proceeding and compensation to the applicants.

¶18

The applicants availed credit facilities from the 2^nd defendant bank upon creation of equitable mortgage over the 2^nd applicant’s immovable property admeasuring 1.777 Ares along with buildings thereon situated in Sy. No.45/5 and Re. Sy. No.39/3A in Puthiyangadi Village, Kozhikode Taluk. Due to default in repayment of the outstanding loan due, the loan accounts of the applicants came to be classified as Non-Performing Asset. Annexure-A2 demand notice dated 09.08.2024 was issued to 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 2^nd defendant bank.

¶19

Therefore, Annexure-B2 possession notice dated 18.12.2024 was issued for symbolically taking physical possession of the secured asset. Subsequently, the defendants approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode and filed Annexure-A3 application and affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. AnnexureA4 Order came to be passed appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure-A5 notice dated 30.07.2025 and subsequently, another notice dated 19.07.2025 Annexure-A7 to the applicants informing them that he would take physical possession of the secured asset. The applicants having aggrieved against the above measures, filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

¶20

Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that since the applicants were making payment till 09.08.2024, the classification of loan accounts is illegal and that there was no proper service of

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

SA No.559 of 2025

¶23

demand notice to the applicants and that the statutory requirements stipulated un/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act 2002 was not complied with by the defendants and that separate affidavit was not filed along with Annexure-A3 petition and that hence the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode ought to have rejected Annexure-A3 petition for want of affidavit and that security interest was not registered with Central Registry and that therefore, SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶24

Counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that since the operation of the loan accounts of the applicants became highly irregular, their loan accounts was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 02.09.2024 and that objection/representation to the demand notice was not sent by the applicants and that therefore, they are not entitled to raise the contention that classification of Non-Performing Asset is illegal.

¶25

Counsel appearing for the defendants further submitted that possession notice was served to the applicants and that it was affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured asset and that it was published in two leading newspapers and that security interest has been registered with the Central Registry as per Annexure-B1 and that affidavit was filed along with Annexure-A3 petition and that all the statutory requirements contemplated u/s 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 were furnished in the affidavit and that the leaned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode after having perused the contents of the affidavit passed Annexure-A4 order to take physical possession of the secured asset and that therefore SA may be dismissed with cost to the defendants.

¶26

The applicants have availed nine credit facilities from the 2^nd defendant bank as evidenced from the perusal of paragraph 6 of the written statement of the defendants. But the applicants have conveniently suppressed the above said availment of the credit facilities in the SA. They have averred in the SA as if they availed only one term loan (A/c No.2772768000295) for an amount of Rs.16,50,000/-. Hence, it is evident that there is wilful suppression in the SA with regard to availment of nine credit facilities.

¶27

A perusal of Annexure-A1 statement of account pertaining to the loan account (A/c No.2772768000295) shows that the applicants did not make payment towards outstanding loan due regularly and continuously for a period of 90 days. Therefore, the contention of the applicants that there was no default in repayment of the outstanding loan due is absolutely incorrect. Further, the applicants having failed to send objection/representation to the demand notice raising the aforesaid issue are not entitled to raise the same at this stage.

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

SA No.559 of 2025

¶30

The defendants have produced Annexure-B3 to B6 in order to prove their contention that Annexure-B2 possession notice was served to the applicant and that it was affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured asset and that it is published in the Hindu edition dated 19.11.2024 and Deepika edition dated 19.11.2024. Annexure-B7 produced by the defendants disproves the contention of the applicants that security interest was not registered with the Central registry.

¶31

A perusal of Annexure-A4 order passed in CMP No.1820/2025 shows that the defendants submitted affidavit along with the petition Annexure-A3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode had referred to the affidavit in his order stating that affidavit was in compliance of the provisions of Sec.14 of SARFAESI Act 2002. Therefore, the contention of the applicants that affidavit was not filed in CMP No.1820/25 is false. The applicants are not entitled to challenge that the statutory requirements contemplated u/s 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 were not complied with without filing the certified copy of the affidavit. However, the defendants have averred in their written statement that the statutory requirements u/s 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 were complied with in respect of filing of the affidavit. A perusal of Annexure-A4 order shows that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode, after having perused the contents of the affidavit and the documents filed in support of the affidavit and having satisfied over the same, passed order appointed Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. This Tribunal does not find any illegality or infirmity in the above order and also in the measures initiated by the defendants in respect of classification of loan account as Non-Performing Asset, issuance of the demand notice and possession notice and also the measures u/s 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002.

¶32

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

¶33

Resultantly, S.A No.559 of 2025 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19^th day of January, 2026.

¶35

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 4 of 4

SA No.559 of 2025

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

¶40

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	---	True coy of loan account statement	Annexure-A1
2.	09.08.2024	True copy of the Demand Notice	Annexure-A2
3.	26.06.2025	True copy of CMP No.1820/2025 filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Court,Kozhikode.	Annexure-A3
4.	28.06.2025	True copy of the order of the CJM Court, Kozhikode in CMP No.1820/2025.	Annexure-A4
5.	30.07.2025	True copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner.	Annexure-A5
6.	---	True copy of the CERSAI certificate	Annexure-A6
7.	19.08.2025	True copy of the Advocate Commissioner’s notice.	Annexure-A7

¶41

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

¶42

Sl.	Date	Particulars
No.
1.	---	True copy of the registration particulars of the secured asset with the Central Registry.	Annexure-B1
2.	18.12.2024	True copy of the Possession Notice issued bythe 1^stdefendant.	Annexure-B2

¶43

Page 5 of 4

¶44

SA No.559 of 2025

¶45

3.	---	Copy of the photographs taken time of symbolic possession secured asset.	at the of the	Annexure-B3
4.	19.11.2024	True copy of the Possession published in The Hindu daily.	Notice	Annexure-B4
5.	19.11.2024	True copy of the Possession published in Deepika daily.	Notice	Annexure-B5
6.	---	True copy of the Acknowledgment card evi receipt ofthePossession Notice.	postal dencing	Annexure-B6
7.	---	True copy of registration partic the secured asset with the Registry.	ulars of Central	Annexure-B7

¶46

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶47

Mj/

¶48

Page 6 of 4

Amrutha Foods v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Amrutha Foods v. Canara Bank

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

State Bank of India versus M/S Agro Food Beverages

Icici Bank Limited versus Jitender Kumar

Bank of Baroda versus Dharamveer Singh

State Bank of India versus M/S Superb Industries a Proprietary Concern through Proprietor Shri Pankaj Narayanji Warfade

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Passi (Since Deceased)

Indian Bank versus Sh. Harpal Singh