Dismissed

Geetha K v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited

DRT29 Apr 2026SA/589/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s application to set aside a securitization proceeding and a Section 14 possession application. The court held that citing the outstanding amount one day prior to the affidavit date did not vitiate the order and the Legal Manager was competent to act.

What did the court decide?

Application to set aside the securitization proceeding and the Section 14 possession application dismissed without costs.

Geetha K versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited — 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 29^th day of April, 2026

¶4

Securitization Application No.589/2025

¶5

Between

¶6

Geetha K., Aged 48 years, C/o. A.Paneer Selvam, Sai Kripa, Near MSC LPS, Pamamcode, Pallichal, Thiruvananthapuram District, Kerala State. …Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd., G Floor Jain Tower- II, NH – 17, Near Lulu, Edappally, Cochin, PIN – 682 024.

¶9

Authorised Officer, Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd., G Floor Jain Tower- II, NH – 17, Near Lulu, Edappally, Cochin, PIN – 682 024. …Defendants

¶10

This Securitization Application having been heard on

¶11

25.03.2026 in the presence of Advocate Mr. Shiv Shankar S. for the applicant and Advocate Mr. G. Viswanathan for the defendants and

¶12

SA 589/2025

¶13

¶14

stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶15

F I N A L O R D E R

¶16

This SA is filed by the applicant under S.17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’) praying to set aside the entire securitization proceeding.

¶17

Brief facts of the case:

¶18

2.1 The applicant availed housing loan of Rs.40 lakhs from the defendants in the year 2020 by mortgaging 2.63 Ares of land as described in the SA. It is claimed by the applicant that despite repayment, the loan account turned to ‘NPA’ arbitrarily by the defendants. Hence the SA No.330/2024 was filed by the applicant challenging the securitization proceeding, which was disposed by order dated 08.07.2025 as the loan account was upgraded.

¶19

2.2 In the SA the applicant has stated that due to default after upgradation, the loan turned to NPA again and the defendants initiated securitization proceeding. They have also filed MC No.627/2025 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take physical possession of the secured asset. The applicant claimed

¶20

SA 589/2025

¶21

¶22

that no fresh demand notice was issued to the applicant and there were no paper publications in widely circulated newspapers. An Advocate Commissioner has issued a fresh notice on 25.08.2025 to take physical possession of the secured asset. All the statutory measures, having not duly complied, the applicant cannot be dispossessed from the secured asset. Hence the applicant has prayed to set aside the securitization proceeding.

¶23

The defendants filed written statement denying the averments and claimed inter alia that after availing the loan, the applicant did not repay the same regularly. The classification of the loan as ‘NPA’ on 04.12.2023 is not at all illegal. The earlier SA filed by the applicant was disposed as the loan was upgraded. Due to subsequent default, again the loan turned to NPA and the demand notice was issued to the applicant and the co-borrower. Relevant documents regarding service of the demand notice are produced. Possession notice was also issued in accordance with the statutory requirement. There is no illegality in the proceeding initiated before the CJM. In absence of any illegality, the securitization proceeding may be dismissed.

¶24

From the respective case of the applicant and defendants, the following points are emerged for adjudication in this case:

¶25

SA 589/2025

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

(ii) Whether the applicant is entitled to get any relief in this proceeding?

¶29

FINDINGS:

¶30

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

¶31

During hearing the learned counsel for the applicant did not dispute the factual aspect and claimed that the proceeding initiated by the CJM is not in accordance with the statutory requirement. The amount due as on the date of application is not stated in the affidavit, which vitiated the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Further it is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that Section 14 application is filed by the Manager, who is not the Authorised Officer and the proviso to Section 14 are not duly complied. Hence the proceeding is vitiated.

¶32

Per contra the learned counsel for the defendant would contend that there is no illegality in the proceeding. The amount due as on 07.04.2025 is stated in the affidavit which was sworn on 08.04.2025 and the application was presented before the CJM. A competent person has filed the application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In absence of any substantial prejudice, the applicant

¶33

SA 589/2025

¶34

¶35

has no basis to challenge such proceeding and the SA may be dismissed.

¶36

Annexure-R4 demand notice was duly served on the applicant. It is only contended that the affidavit filed by the Authorized officer does not show the amount outstanding on the day of application and hence the order is vitiated. In the affidavit in paragraph 13 the Authorized officer has specifically stated the amount outstanding on 07.04.2025 and affidavit was sworn on one day after on 08.04.2025. The same cannot be treated as a material error to interdict.

¶37

In a judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 18.04.2022 in Writ Petition No.3950/2022 in the case of Mogali Durga Devi & others v. Union of India & others, similar question was raised and at paragraph 10 it is held as follows:-

¶38

“ 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

¶39

SA 589/2025

¶40

¶41

Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, such as taking of physical possession of property on 09.02.2022 and on 16.02.2022.”

¶42

In view of this ratio, by mere mentioning of the outstanding one day before the date of swearing of affidavit, the proceeding cannot be said as illegal. No other substantial illegality in the securitization proceeding is established by the applicant to interdict with the same.

¶43

Authorised Officer is defined in Rule 2(a) of The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. In view of this provision, in respect of the public sector bank or equivalent, Authorised Officer must be an officer not less than a Chief Manager. In respect of other secured creditor, any other person or authority exercising powers of Superintendence, direction and control of the business or affairs of the secured creditor can act as Authorised Officer.

¶44

Here in this case the defendant is a Private Housing Finance company and authorised Legal Manager to discharge the function of the Authorised Officer. Hence there is no illegality on the part of the Legal Manager to file application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. In absence of any substantial prejudice caused to the applicant, interference with the securitization proceeding is not warranted and hence the applicant is not entitled to get any relief. Both the points are answered against the applicant.

¶45

SA 589/2025

¶46

¶47

Hence it is ordered:-

¶48

ORDER

¶49

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

¶50

(Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 29^th day of April, 2026).

¶51

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶52

¶53

Documents on the part of the applicant

¶54

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-A1	08.07.2025	True copy of Order in SA No.330/2024.
Annexure-A2	08.04.2025	True copy of the Application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act along with affidavit
		MC No. 627/2025 before the
		Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram.
Annexure-A3	07.05.2025	True copy of the Order in MC No. 627/2025 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram.
Annexure-A4	18.06.2025	True copy of the Medical Certificate.
Annexure-A5	18.08.2025	True copy of the transaction details for payment of Rs.2,00,000/-
Annexure-A6	17.01.2025	Certified copy of the paper publication.
Annexure-A7	25.08.2025	True copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner.

¶55

Documents on the part of the defendants : NIL

¶56

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶57

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶58

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶59

Dated the 29^th April, 2026

¶60

SA No.589/2025

¶61

Between Geetha K., Aged 48 years, C/o. A.Paneer Selvam, Sai Kripa, Near MSC LPS, Pamamcode, Pallichal, Thiruvananthapuram District, Kerala State. …Applicant

¶62

And

¶63

Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd., G Floor Jain Tower- II, NH – 17, Near Lulu, Edappally, Cochin, PIN – 682 024 & Anr. …Defendants

¶64

FINAL ORDER

Geetha K v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetha K v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited

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

Uco Bank versus Manpreet Kumar

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus M/S Prasad Broom Stick Co. and Ors.

State Bank of India versus Muni Royal

Nawal Singh Verma versus Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Ms Shiddi Sai Traders Prop Sujata Ghatraj and Anr.

M/S Linsa Medicals versus State Bank of India