Dismissed

Sameera S v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

DRT26 Mar 2026SA/627/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a securitization proceeding under the SARFAESI Act. The applicant failed to establish any illegality in the process where a mortgage notice was served and possession proceedings initiated due to loan default. The application was rejected without granting relief.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed without costs. No relief granted to set aside notice or permit instalments.

Sameera S versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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 March, 2026

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.627/2024

¶5

Between

¶6

Sameera S., Aged 46 years, W/o. Sanil Kumar, Vadakke Chennam Veedu, Arookutty P.O., Alappuzha, Kerala – 688 535. …Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

LIC Housing Finance Limited, Represented by its Authorised Officer Sri. Aneesh P.C., LIC Housing Finance Limited, Ernakulam Back Office, 9^th Floor, Jeevan Prakash LIC Building, M.G.Road, Ernakulam, PIN 682 011. …Defendant

¶9

This Securitization Application having been heard on

¶10

18.03.2026 in the presence of Advocate A.N.Sathishkumar A.N. for

¶11

the applicant and Advocate Sreedevi B. for the defendant and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶12

SA 627/2024

¶13

¶14

F I N A L O R D E R

¶15

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 applicant filed this SA under S.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act praying to set aside the Commissioner notice and permit her to deposit the overdue amount in instalments.

¶16

Brief facts of the case :

¶17

The applicant availed housing loan of Rs.30,10,000/- from the defendant bank by creating security interest over the subject matter property. Due to default in repayment, the securitization proceeding was initiated to recover the outstanding dues. A demand notice was issued by the defendant calling the applicant to deposit the outstanding amount within the statutory period. But due to non-compliance, the defendant proceeded further in the securitization proceeding by filing MC No.301/2024 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI At before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha to take physical possession of the secured asset. Being satisfied with the materials, the learned CJM passed an order in appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the secured asset. The said Advocate Commissioner issued a notice on

¶18

SA 627/2024

¶19

¶20

02.08.2024 to take possession of the secured asset, which is impugned in this SA by the applicant with a prayer to set aside the Commissioner notice and permit her to deposit the overdue amount in instalments.

¶21

The defendant filed written statement denying the averments and claimed inter alia that there is no illegality or irregularity in the securitization proceeding. Due to default in repayment the loan turned ‘NPA’ on 12.05.2023 followed by issuance of a demand notice on 08.08.2023. It is stated that there is no illegality in the securitization proceeding under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Hence the SA may be dismissed.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

FINDINGS:

¶26

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

¶27

Both the points being interlinked with each other are

¶28

taken up together for consideration. During hearing of the SA the

¶29

SA 627/2024

¶30

¶31

learned counsel for the applicant submitted that during pendency of the SA physical possession of the SA is already taken by the Advocate Commissioner. The learned counsel also conceded that no evidence is placed regarding non-compliance of the statutory measures. It is only submitted that the applicant may be given opportunity to remit the outstanding within a reasonable period.

¶32

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that there is no illegality in the securitization proceeding. In absence of any illegality interference with the securitization proceeding is not warranted. Physical possession of the secured asset is already taken which is not challenged in the SA. Hence the applicant is not entitled to get any relief and the SA may be dismissed.

¶33

Admittedly the applicant availed housing loan by creating security interest over the subject matter property. Due to nonrepayment, the securitization proceeding was initiated. In the SA there is no whisper about any illegality in the securitization proceeding. The applicant also conceded that there is no illegality in the securitization proceeding. As the applicant has failed to establish any illegality or irregularity in the securitization proceeding, interference with the same is not necessary. Hence both the points are answered against the applicant. If the applicant

¶34

SA 627/2024

¶35

¶36

will approach in writing to the defendant for repaying the loan within a reasonable period, the defendant may consider the same before proceeding further in the securitization proceeding.

¶37

Hence it is ordered:-

¶38

ORDER

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

SA 627/2024

¶43

¶44

Documents on the part of the applicant

¶45

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-A1	17.04.2024	A true copy of CMP No.1973/ MC No.301/2024 of the Chief Magistrate Court, Alappuzha.	2024 in Judicial
Annexure-A2	07.05.2024	A true copy of the Order No.301/2024 of the Chief Magistrate Court, Alappuzha.	in MC Judicial
Annexure-A3	02.08.2024	True copy of the A commissioner notice.	dvocate

¶46

Documents on the part of the defendant … NIL

¶47

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶48

SA 627/2024

¶49

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶50

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶51

Dated the 26^th March, 2026

¶52

SA No.627/2024

¶53

Between

¶54

Sameera S., Aged 46 years, W/o. Sanil Kumar, Vadakke Chennam Veedu, Arookutty P.O., Alappuzha, Kerala – 688 535. …Applicant

¶55

And

¶56

¶57

F I N A L O R D E R

Sameera S v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameera S v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

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

Idfc Bank Limited versus Nirmal Roti Supplier and Ors.

Icici Bank Limited versus Dharmendra Yadav

Canara Bank versus Narendra Kumar Anand

West Bengal Gramin Bank versus M/S Pitrideb Fuels Prop Goutam Kumar Sarkar And Anr.

Anilkumar T R versus South Indian Bank

Mr B P Kanikairaj versus Karur Vysya Bank