Dismissed

Rajan T v. Punjab and Sind Bank

DRT26 Feb 2026SA/573/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a bank’s possession and sale notices under the SARFAESI Act. The court found no illegality in the demand notice, possession notice published in newspapers, or subsequent proceedings, noting the sale had not yet occurred. Relief was denied.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed without costs, holding no illegality in the bank’s possession or sale notices.

Rajan T versus Punjab and Sind 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 26^th day of February, 2026

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.573/2024

¶5

Between

¶6

Rajan T., RS Nivas, Therivila, Kattachalkuzhi P.O., Venganoor, Trivandrum.

¶7

Selin S.D., W/o. Rajan T., RS Nivas, Therivila, Kattachalkuzhi P.O., Venganoor, Trivandrum. …Applicants

¶8

And

¶9

The Authorised Officer, Punjab & Sind Bank, Trivandrum Branch, Ground Floor, TC No.25/2890, Haji Bhava Commercial Complex, Ambuja Vilasam Road, Trivandrum – 1. …Defendant

¶10

This Securitization Application having been heard on

¶11

27.11.2025 & 09.02.2026 in the presence of Advocate Mr.Aype

¶12

Joseph for the applicants and Advocate Mr.Deepu Anil for the defendant and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶13

SA 573/2024

¶14

¶15

F I N A L O R D E R

¶16

Challenging the securitization proceeding 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 the possession notice as well as sale notice issued by the defendant including the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner.

¶17

Brief facts of the case :

¶18

2.1 In this SA the applicants have challenged the possession notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and the sale notice dated 05.08.2024 issued by the defendant for public auction of the secured asset. It is claimed by the applicants that they have availed an overdraft facility to the tune of Rs.22 lakhs in the year 2016 and a vehicle loan of Rs.4 lakhs on 08.05.2019. But due to prolonged treatment of the 1^st applicant, default occurred in repayment of loan. Consequently, the defendant classified the loan as ‘NPA’ and issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act calling the applicants to repay the entire due within 60 days from the date of the notice. But on failure on the part of the applicants to comply with the same, a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was

¶19

¶20

SA 573/2024

¶21

issued on 16.01.2024. It is claimed in the SA that the statutory requirement in issuing the possession notice was not duly complied.

¶22

2.2 The defendant issued a sale notice on 05.08.2024 proposing to sell the secured asset on 22.08.2024 without complying with the statutory requirement. The reserve price fixed for the secured asset is not in accordance with the market value of the property. No valuation report was obtained from approved valuer and the defendant put the property for sale at a throw away price, which is against the interest of the applicant. So also an Advocate commissioner issued a notice on 24.08.2024 to take possession of the secured asset, which is illegal. Hence the SA is filed praying to set aside the possession notice as well as sale notice including the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner.

¶23

The defendant filed written statement denying the averments and claimed inter alia that all the statutory measures are duly complied in issuing the demand notice and the possession notice. Despite receipt of demand notice, the applicants did not take any step to repay the loan. Consequently, the property was put to sale after obtaining valuation report from the approved valuer. The sale did not happen due to want of bidders. There is also no illegality in the proceedings initiated before the CJM, Trivandrum under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Challenging the

¶24

SA 573/2024

¶25

¶26

same in this proceeding is also not sustainable. Hence the defendant claimed for dismissal of the SA.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

FINDINGS:

¶31

Point No.(i) & (ii):-

¶32

Admittedly the applicants have availed the loan from the defendant by creating security interest over the subject matter property. But due to non-payment of the same, the securitization proceeding was initiated. The defendant produced demand notice and the copy of the intimation received from the postal authorities showing delivery of the said notice to the applicants. Possession notice was also published in 2 daily newspapers in ‘New Indian Express’ in English and ‘Kerala Kaumudi’ in vernacular language. Photographs of the affixture of possession notice is also produced in this case. No illegality is found in issuance of the said possession notice and the demand notice. The learned counsel for the

¶33

SA 573/2024

¶34

¶35

applicants has also failed to establish any illegality in such proceedings to interdict in this forum.

¶36

Though in the SA the applicants challenged the proceeding under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner, nothing illegal in the said proceeding is pointed out in the SA and also at the time of argument to interfere with the same.

¶37

So far issuance of sale notice is concerned, the sale did not fructify, and the applicants have no further cause of action in challenging the said proceeding. In absence of any illegality or irregularity in the securitization proceeding, the applicants are not entitled to get any relief and both the points are answered against them.

¶38

Hence it is ordered:-

¶39

ORDER

¶40

In view of the foregoing reasons, this SA, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances, without costs.

¶41

(Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 26^th day of February, 2026).

¶42

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

SA 573/2024

¶44

Documents on the part of the applicants

¶45

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-A1	19.01.2023	Copy of Section 13(2) notice.
Annexure-A2	16.01.2024	Copy of Section 13(4) notice.
Annexure-A3	05.08.2024	Copy of sale notice.
Annexure-A4	08.08.2024	Copy of postal cover.
Annexure-A5	05.08.2024	Copy of Advocate Commissioner’s notice with translation.

¶46

Documents on the part of the defendant

¶47

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-B1	02.11.2023	Copy of the registered notices under Section 13(2) of the Act issued to the applicants.
Annexure-B2		True copy of the acknowledgment card signed by 1^st applicant evidencing service of Section 13(2) notice.
Annexure-B3	04.02.2021	Copy of reply from the postal authorities confirming the delivery of the postal article with delivery acknowledgment evidencing service of 13(2) notice.
Annexure-B4	02.11.2023	Photograph showing affixture of Annexure-A2 notice and the authorised official of the secured creditor.
Annexure-B5	17.01.2024	Paper publication published in Kerala Kaumudi daily.
Annexure-B6	17.01.2024	Paper publication published in New Indian Express daily.

¶48

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶49

SA 573/2024

¶50

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶51

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶52

Dated the 26^th February, 2026

¶53

SA No.573/2024

¶54

Between

¶55

Rajan T., RS Nivas, Therivila, Kattachalkuzhi P.O., Venganoor, Trivandrum & Anr. …Applicants

¶56

And

¶57

The Authorised Officer, Punjab & Sind Bank, Trivandrum Branch, Ground Floor, TC No.25/2890, Haji Bhava Commercial Complex, Ambuja Vilasam Road, Trivandrum–1. …Defendant

¶58

F I N A L O R D E R

Rajan T v. Punjab and Sind Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan T v. Punjab and Sind 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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Gurdev Singh

Canara Bank versus Ramesh Kumar

Hdfc Bank versus Pukhraj Singh

Bank of Baroda versus Surekha

Mr Abdul Mannan And Anr. versus Axis Bank

State Bank of India versus Vipin