Dismissed

Mujeeb Rahman P v. C v Axis Bank

DRT21 Apr 2026SA/604/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debits Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application seeking to set aside possession notices and demand letters issued by the respondent bank, holding that the applicant failed to establish procedural illegality or non-compliance with SARFAESI Act requirements, noting the existence of a payment record. The court further held that a request for installment repayment does not fall under Section 13(

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Mujeeb Rahman P v C versus Axis Bank — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 21st DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 604 of 2023

¶6

Between

¶7

Mujeeb Rahman P V C S/o. Abdul Ali, Nari Kooth House, Andiyookunnu Pulikkal, Malappuram – 673 637.

¶8

Shiblli P.V., W/o. Mujeeb Rahman, Nari Kooth House, Andiyookunnu Pulikkal, Malappuram – 673 637.

¶9

--- Applicants

¶10

And

¶11

Axis Bank Ltd. Rep by Authorized Officer, RAC 2^nd Floor, Global Tower, Near V Zone Mall, Parayanchery, Mavoor Road, Calicut – 673 016.

¶12

--- Defendant

¶13

This Securitization Application coming on 20.02.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. E.M. Murugan, Counsel appearing for the Applicants and Ms. Thankom Mukundakrishnan Counsel appearing for the defendant and upon hearing arguments of learned Counsels for both the parties and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶14

SA No.604 of 2023

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Securitisation Application was filed on 13.10.2023 seeking to set aside Annexure-A3 Possession Notice, A4 Order and A5 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner and to direct the defendant not to take physical possession of the property of the applicants and to direct the defendant to permit the applicants to pay off the actual liability under the loan account in instalments and allow the applicants to recover the full costs from the defendant.

¶17

The applicants availed credit facility in the year 2014 to the tune of Rs 1,50,00,000/- from the defendant bank upon creation of equitable mortgage of their removable property comprised in Re survey No.285/5,6 of Pallikal village Kondotty, by deposit of title deeds with the defendant bank.

¶18

Since the applicants defaulted in re payment of the outstanding loan due, their loan account was classified as non performing asset on 09.09.2021 Annexure-B2 demand notice was issued to the applicants calling upon them to repay the outstanding loan due with accrued interest within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice. The applicants sent the reply notice Annexure-B1 for the above demand notice through their advocate to the defendant.

¶19

Since the applicants failed to respond to the terms of the demand notice, the defendant issued Annexure-A3 possession notice dated 26.02.2022 for symbolically taking possession of the secured asset. Subsequently, the defendant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri and filed application and affidavit under section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. Annexure-A4 order dated 03.06.2023 came to be passed in MC No.184/2023 appointing advocate commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. The advocate commissioner issued Annexure-A5 notice dated 14.09.2023 to the applicants informing them that she would take physical possession of the property on 18.10.2023. The applicants having aggrieved against the measures have filed this SA seeking for the relief stated supra.

¶20

The counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the loan account of the applicants was classified as NPA during the moratorium period and the stay granted buy the Hon’ble supreme court and that applicant is not wilful defaulter. The request of the applicant for the regularisation of the loan account was not considered by the defendant. Possession notice was not issued to the applicants and it was not published in newspapers. The Annexure-A4 order is illegal. Therefore, the SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

SA No.604 of 2023

¶23

The counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that though the applicants have contended that they did not receive the demand notice, they have admitted the receipt of the demand notice in their reply notice Annexure-B1 and that for the above reply notice, suitable reply letter dated 30.11.2021 Annexure-A2 was sent to the applicants. All the benefits announced by the government in connection with the COVID reliefs were extended to the applicants prior to the classicisation of the loan account as Non-Performing Asset. AnnexureA2 was issued to the applicants. Since the applicants defaulted in repayment of the outstanding loan due, the loan account was classified as NPA as per RBI guidelines. Possession notice was published in two leading newspapers and it was served to the applicants. The defendant complied with the statutory requirements in respect of filing of application and affidavit in MC No.184/2023 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri. The applicants are not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the SA. Therefore, SA may be dismissed with costs to the defendant.

¶24

The applicants have themselves admitted in Para ‘E’ under the caption “GROUNDS’ of the S.A as follows. “ Even though the applicant (to be corrected as applicants) has ( to be corrected as have ) defaulted repayment, they used to make payments”. The above admission of the applicants itself sufficient to prove the contention of the defendants that the loan account of the applicants was declared as NPA due to the default in repayment of the outstanding due. Further a perusal of Annexure-B2 demand notice reveals that the loan account of the applicants was declared as NonPerforming Asset only after the COVID-19 period was over.

¶25

The applicants have produced copy of Annexure-A3 possession notice. Hence the contention of the applicants that no proper possession notice was serve to them is incorrect.

¶26

The applicants have not specifically raised any contentions or pleadings in the SA as to whether the statutory requirements contemplated under Clauses (i) to (ix) of the proviso of section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002, was not complied with in respect of filing of affidavit by the defendant. They have even not produced the copies of the application and affidavit filed in MC No.184/2023 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri. A perusal of Annexure-A4 order shows that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri 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 appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. This Tribunal does not find any illegality or procedural irregularity in the above order. It is also pertinent to

¶27

Page 3 of 5

¶28

SA No.604 of 2023

¶29

mention that there is no specific challenge by the applicants in the SA in respect of the above order.

¶30

One of the reliefs sought for the applicants in the SA is to permit them to pay off the actual liability under the loan account in instalments. The above relief does not fall under any of the measures referred to under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. It is for the applicants to approach the defendant bank to get the above relief.

¶31

In view of the forgoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that the applicants have failed to establish their case so as to get the reliefs sought for in the SA.

¶32

Resultantly, SA No.604 of 2023 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of April, 2026.

¶34

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Ds/

Page 4 of 5

SA No.604 of 2023

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

¶39

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	15.11.2021	True copy of the letter from defendant bankto applicants.	Annexure-A1
2.	30.11.2021	True copy of the reply letter issued by defendant bank.	Annexure-A2
3.	26.02.2022	True copy of the Possession Notice	Annexure-A3
4.	03.06.2023	True copy of the order in MC No.184 of 2023 of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Manjeri.	Annexure-A4
5.	14.09.2023	True copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner	Annexure-A5

¶40

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

¶41

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	22.11.2021	True copy of the reply to the Demand Notice.	Annexure-B1
2.	30.10.2021	True copy of the Demand Notice	Annexure-B2
3.	03.03.2022	True copy of the publication of Possession Notice in the Mangalam daily	Annexure-B3
4.	03.03.2022	True copy of the publication of Possession Noticein TheHindu daily	Annexure-B4

¶42

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

Ds/

¶44

Page 5 of 5

Mujeeb Rahman P v. C v Axis Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujeeb Rahman P v. C v Axis 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

Sulaiman Kavungathodi versus Axis Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Deepak Chaturvedi

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Shri Wakar Ahmed

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Wani Garments

Prafulla Kumar versus Authum Investment Infrastructure Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Kuldeep Singh