Dismissed

K J Thomas v. South Indian Bank

DRT29 Apr 2026SA/657/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's petition challenging a Securitization Application filed under S.17(1) SARFAESI Act. The court held that no illegality existed in the notice publication or affidavit filing regarding outstanding debt dates, and dismissed the suit with costs.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed; applicant ordered to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the defendant.

K J Thomas versus South Indian 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 29^th day of April,2026

¶4

Securitization Application No.657/2024

¶5

Between

¶6

K.J Thomas, aged 61 years, S/o. K.U John, Kochuveetil House, Thaliparamba P.O.,

¶7

Kannur - 670 141. …Applicant

¶8

And

¶9

The South Indian Bank,

¶10

Regional Office, Regency Square, K.K Road, Collectorate P.O.,

¶11

Kottayam - 686 002.

¶12

Authorized Officer,

¶13

The South Indian Bank,

¶14

Regional Office, Regency Square, K K Road, Collectorate P.O., Kottayam - 686 002. …Defendants

¶15

This Securitization Application having been heard on

¶16

02.04.2026 in the presence of Advocate Shiv Shankar for the applicant and Advocate Arya Satheesh for the defendants and

¶17

SA/657/2024

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

F I N A L O R D E R

¶21

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 order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the notice issued by the advocate commissioner.

¶22

Brief facts of the case :

¶23

2.1. The applicant, having a Bakery Unit in the name and style M/s Tasty Park bakers and caters, availed credit facilities along with wife and son from the defendant bank by mortgaging 9.75 Ares of property described as item No.1 in the SA. His wife also stood as guarantor and mortgaged 8.46 Ares of land described in item No.2 to secure the loan.

¶24

2.2 Due to default in repayment the loan turned to NPA on 31.03.2021 followed by issuance of the of the demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. It is claimed that the publication of demand notice in the newspapers “The Deepika” and “The Indian Express” are not widely circulated newspapers of the locality and

¶25

SA/657/2024

¶26

¶27

hence it can be said that the demand notice was not duly served. It is claimed in the SA that the possession notices u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was not duly served on the applicant.

¶28

2.3. Despite such illegality, the defendant filed an application u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam to take physical possession of the secured asset. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate appointed an advocate commissioner vide order dated 29.07.2024 to assist the defendant in taking physical possession of the secured asset. The notice issued by the advocate commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset is under challenged in this proceeding.

¶29

2.4. It is claimed in the SA that all the statutory measures are not duly followed in the securitization proceeding and also the security interest is not registered in CERSAI Portal. Hence, the applicant sought the relief to set aside the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the notice issued by the advocate commissioner.

¶30

3.1 The defendant filed written statement in denying the averments in the SA and claimed inter alia that the applicant, being the sole proprietor of M/s Tasty Park Bakers and caterers,

¶31

SA/657/2024

¶32

¶33

availed term loan facility of Rs.45,81,000/- and another term loan of Rs.30,00,000/- including other facilities by mortgaging his properties and the property of his wife described in the SA. Due to default in the securitization proceeding the loan turned to NPA on 24.03.2021 w.e.f 28.01.2021 and the credit facilities availed by him along with his wife and son were classified as NPA on 31.03.2021.

¶34

3.2. The defendant, being unable to take physical possession of the secured assets, filed M.C.No.24/2024 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam to take physical possession of the secured asset after following all the statutory requirements. An advocate commissioner is appointed to take possession of the secured asset. In absence of any illegality, this SA is filed by the applicant on frivolous grounds to protract the recovery proceeding. Hence, the SA, being devoid of any merit, may be dismissed.

¶35

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

¶36

(i) Whether the securitization proceeding initiated by the defendants suffers from any illegality or irregularity?

¶37

SA/657/2024

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

Points Nos.(i) &(ii)

¶41

Admittedly, the applicant availed five (5) loans out of which 2 item loans availed by the applicant as proprietor of his proprietorship concern. The applicant, his wife and son availed other three (3) facilities. All the loans are secured by creation of security interest over the subject matter property of an extend of 18.21 Ares belonging to the applicant and his wife.

¶42

The applicant claims that the secured asset is not registered in the CERSAI portal but the defendant has furnished security ID.No.400020579584 registered in the CERSAI portal. The applicant has not disputed the same by counter or PA.

¶43

The demand notice was also issued to the applicant and his wife and son and the applicant received the same. But the summons to his wife and son returned unserved. Paper Publications were made in daily newspapers both in English and vernacular language. Wife of the applicant and son have not challenged the service of demand notice nor they are parties to

¶44

SA/657/2024

¶45

¶46

the proceeding. Hence, the contentions of the applicant challenging such publication is not at all warranted.

¶47

During hearing the learned counsel for the applicant contented that the proviso of Sec.14 of the SARFAESI Act is not duly complied. The amount outstanding as on the date of application is not stated in the affidavit which vitiates the proceeding.

¶48

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant contented that in the affidavit filed along with Sec.14 application in paragraph.18 it is specifically stated the amount due on 22.07.2024 is Rs.1,71,07,224.99/- and the affidavit was sworn on 23.07.2024 which doesn’t vitiate the proceeding. In absence of any illegality any illegality the SA may be disposed.

¶49

In fact, on perusal of the affidavit filed by the defendant along with the written statement it is specifically stated the amount outstanding on 22.07.2024 is mentioned and on the next date the affidavit was sworn. The other statutory requirement in compliance to the provisions to Sec.14 of the SARFAESI Act is duly complied.

¶50

SA/657/2024

¶51

¶52

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:-

¶53

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

¶54

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. The Chief Judicial Magistrate also passed the order by application of mind to the documents placed by the defendant. Hence, contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant have no force. In absence of proof of any illegality in the

¶55

SA/657/2024

¶56

¶57

securitization proceeding the applicant is not entitled to get any relief. All the points are answered against the applicant

¶58

Hence it is ordered: -

¶59

ORDER

¶60

In view of the foregoing reasons, the SA, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances, with cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the applicant to the defendant for causing unnecessary delay in the securitization proceedings.

¶61

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

¶62

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶63

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH]

¶64

SA/657/2024

¶65

¶66

Documents on the part of the applicant

¶67

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-A1	23.07.2024	True copy of the Sec.14 Application in M.C no.524/2024 of 2024 before The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam.
Annexure-A2	29.07.2024	True copy of the order in M.C no.524/2024 before The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam.
Annexure-A3	03.09.2024	True copy of the Advocate Commissioner notice.

¶68

Documents on the part of the defendants

¶69

Annexure-B1	08.09.2023	True copy of the demand notice.
Annexure-B2	..	True copy of acknowledgement returned postal cover and publication.	card, paper
Annexure-B3	..	True copy of petition and affidavit no.524/2024, Chief Judicial Mag	in M.C istrate
		Court, Kottayam.
Annexure-B4	03.04.2018	True copy of confirmation letter.