Dismissed

Puthedath Metals v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT23 Jun 2026SA/671/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application filed by borrowers challenging the bank's demand notice, possession notices, and CJM orders for recovery of NPA dues. The court held that statutory requirements under SARFAESI Rules were complied with.

What did the court decide?

None as the application was dismissed.

What the court decided

Puthedath Metals versus Indian Overseas Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 23^rd DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 671 of 2023

¶6

Between

¶7

M/s. Puthedath Metals,

¶8

Bhavaraparambu Junction,

¶9

N.H. Bye Pass Road,

¶10

Thammanam P.O.,

¶11

Ernakulam – 682 032,

¶12

Represented by its

¶13

Managing Partner Ameer P.A.

¶14

Ameer P.A., Puthedath House, Keerthi Nagar Road, Edappally P.O., Elamakkara,

¶15

Ernakulam -682 024.

¶16

Jaseela Ameer, W/o. Ameer, Puthedath House, Keerthi Nagar Road,

¶17

Edappally P.O., Elamakkara,

¶18

Ernakulam -682 024.

¶19

--- Applicants

¶20

And

¶21

Indian Overseas Bank,

¶22

Represented by the Branch Manager, Palarivattom Branch,

¶23

Chakos Chambers,

¶24

Bye Pass Junction, Palarivattom, Ernakulam-682 025.

¶25

SA No.671 of 2023

¶26

The Authorized Officer

¶27

Indian Overseas Bank

¶28

Regional Office, 5^th Floor,

¶29

Vettukattil Building, M.G. Road

¶30

Ernakulam -682 016.

¶31

--- Defendants

¶32

This Securitization Application coming on 08.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. V.K. Peer Mohamed Khan, Counsel appearing for the Applicants and Mr. Jaykar K.S., Counsel appearing for defendants and upon hearing arguments of learned Counsels for all the parties and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

This Securitisation Application was filed on 09.11.2023 seeking to set aside Annexure-I demand notice, Annexure-II series proceedings in taking possession of the properties scheduled therein along with Annexure-III sale notice and to set aside Annexure-VI and IX applications, VII and X orders of CJM Court and VIII and XI notices issued by the Advocate Commissioners and to set aside Annexure-XII to XIV proceedings and to order restricting the defendants from evicting the applicants from the properties and to allow the cost of this proceedings from the defendant bank.

¶35

The 1^st applicant is a partnership Firm, 2^nd applicant is the Managing partner and the 3^rd applicant is a partner of the 1st applicant Firm. The 1^st applicant availed various credit facilities from the 1^st defendant bank upon creation of equitable mortgage over the 2^nd applicant’s immovable property as described in Annexure-A1 demand notice by deposit of title deeds as the collateral security in favour of the 1st defendant bank.

¶36

Since the applicants defaulted in repayment of the outstanding loan due, their loan accounts came to be classified as Non-Performing Asset on 24.12.2022. Annexure-A1 demand notice dated 29.12.2022 was issued to the applicants calling upon them to repay the outstanding loan due within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice. It appears that the applicants neither sent any objection/representation to the demand notice nor did they clear off their liability due to the defendant bank.

¶37

Subsequently, Annexure-II possession notice dated 04.05.2023 in respect of first item of the secured assets, Annexure-II(a) possession

¶38

Page 2 of 11

¶39

SA No.671 of 2023

¶40

notice dated 04.05.2023 in respect of third item of the secured assets and Annexure-II (b) possession notice dated 04.05.2023 in respect of second item of the secured assets were issued for symbolically taking physical possession of the secured asset.

¶41

Thereafter the 2^nd defendant approached Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam and filed Annexure-VI application and affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Annexure-VII Order came to be passed on 07.10.2023 in MC No.677/2023 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of one of the items of the secured assets which is mentioned as first item in Annexure-I demand notice. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure-VIII notice dated 31.10.2023 to the applicants informing them that he would take physical possession of the property.

¶42

The 2^nd defendant again approached the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam and filed Annexure-IX application and affidavit u/s 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. Annexure-X Order came to be passed on 17.10.2023 in MC No.698/2023 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of one of the items of the secured assets which is mentioned as item No.3 in Annexure-I demand notice. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure-XI notice dated 25.10.2023 to the applicants informing them that he would take physical possession of the property on or after 08.11.2023.

¶43

Thereafter the 2^nd defendant again approached the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam and filed Annexure-XII application and affidavit u/s 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. Annexure-XIII Order came to be passed on 17.10.2023 in MC No.697/2023 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of one of the items of the secured assets which is mentioned as item No.2 in Annexure-I demand notice. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure-XIV notice dated 18.01.2024 to the applicants informing them that he would take physical possession of the property on 02.02.2024. The applicants having aggrieved against the above measures, filed this S.A seeking the reliefs stated supra.

¶44

The counsel appearing for the applicants filed written argument notes and subsequently revised/additional written argument notes submitting that demand notice, possession notices and sale notice were not served to the applicants and the notices were not affixed and published and that security interest over the secured assets has not

¶45

Page 3 of 11

¶46

SA No.671 of 2023

¶47

been registered with the Central Registry and that though AnnexureA2 possession notice was issued on 04.05.2023, it was published in the Newspapers only on 17.05.2023 by violating Rule 8 (2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002.

¶48

The Counsel for the applicants submitted further that defendants have not filed any documents along with the written statement evidencing the creation of security interest in respect of the four items of the properties for the credit facilities extended to the 1^st applicant Firm and that Annexure-D4 letter of extension of equitable mortgage does not provide any information regarding which are the credit facilities secured by the alleged equitable mortgage and that who is the borrower and that in Annexure-A3 letter of extension of equitable mortgage, there is no mention with regard to the original mortgage dated 25.02.2009 in respect of fourth item of the properties and that supplemental confirmation letter dated 16.8.2021, Annexure-XVI does not provide any details as to whom additional facilities were extended and that therefore, Annexure-D3 and D4 documents will not support the case of the defendants.

¶49

The counsel for the applicants submitted further that item No.4 of the properties was never extended to the facilities granted to the 1^st applicant Firm and that but 1st defendant bank has included the above property in Annexure-A1 demand notice and that therefore, Annexure-A1 demand notice is illegal and that though the defendants submitted three separate applications and affidavit before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam in respect of item Nos.1 to 3 of the secured assets, no application and affidavit was filed in respect of 4th item of the secured assets u/s 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 and that creation of security interest over the secured assets is defective and that orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam for taking physical possession of the secured asset is illegal and that therefore, the SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶50

The counsel appearing for the defendants filed written argument notes and submitted that the credit facilities availed by the 1^st applicant Firm has been secured through equitable mortgage in respect of the properties owned by the applicants and that since the applicants defaulted in repayment of the outstanding loan due, the loan accounts were classified as Non-Performing Asset on 24.12.2022 and that demand notice was served to the applicants and that possession notices were served to the applicants and that the possession notices were published in two newspapers and that due to inadvertent error it was averred in the written statement that

¶51

Page 4 of 11

¶52

SA No.671 of 2023

¶53

possession notices were published on 17.05.2023 instead of 07.05.2023 and that therefore, Rule 8 (2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 has been complied with and that possession notices were affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured assets.

¶54

The counsel appearing for the defendants submitted further that the 2^nd defendant is the Authorized Officer of the 1^st defendant bank and that therefore, affidavits filed by the 2^nd defendant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, is legal and that the mandatory requirements contemplated u/s 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been complied with in respect of filing of the affidavits and that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam after having applied her mind and scrutinized the affidavits passed order appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset and that the SA filed by the applicants is liable to be dismissed with cost to the defendants.

¶55

In Annexure-I demand notice, it is mentioned that the credit facilities were secured by the assets belonging to Mr. P. A. Ameer (2^nd applicant herein). The details of the four items of the secured asset has been furnished in the form of tabular column in Annexure-AI demand notice. The 2^nd applicant has submitted Annexure-D3 supplemental confirmation letter dated 23.10.2020 to the 1^st defendant bank declaring that he had already deposited his original title deed relating to the properties mentioned here under on 25.02.2019 and 10.12.2010 with an intention to create a security by way of equitable mortgage thereon for the loans/advances/credit facilities granted/to be granted/continued to the above borrower to the extent of Rs.5 Crores. He has also stated that he authorized the bank to hold the said original title deeds relating to the said property as continuing collateral security for further loans/advances made or to be made to the borrower to the extent of Rs.1 Crore. The description of the four items of the property has been furnished in Annexure-D3.

¶56

It cannot be disputed that in Annexure-D4 letter of extension of equitable mortgage dated 26.02.2009, there is no specific mention as to which for loan account security was furnished, as submitted by the counsel for the applicants. However, in Annexure-D3 supplemental confirmation letter (the original of Annexure-D3 has been produced by the defendants as Annexure-D9) which was given by the 2nd applicant subsequently, he has averred that he had already deposited his original deed relating to the properties for the credit facility availed to the extent of Rs.5 Crores. Hence, the omission to mention the loan

¶57

Page 5 of 11

¶58

SA No.671 of 2023

¶59

amount in Annexure-D4 will not render it invalid. The defendants have subsequently produced the original letter of Annexure-D4 as Annexure-D8.

¶60

The applicants have produced true copy of letter of extension of equitable mortgage dated 16.08.2021 as Annexure-A25 contending that it is stated in Annexure-A25 that re-deposit of title deeds is as security for the credit security granted to M/s Puthedath Metals and M/s Classic Metals whereas in Annexure-D3 document it is stated that it is related to the confirmation of redeposit of title deeds as security created for the credit facilities granted/to be granted to M/s Puthedath Metals against the same items of the properties. Therefore, according to the applicants, conflicting averments in respect of creation of security interest has been given by the defendants. It is pertinent to mention that the author of Annexure-D3 as well as Annexure-A25 is none other than the 2^nd applicant who submitted both letter of confirmation to the 1^st defendant bank.

¶61

The counsel for the applicants during his advancement of argument drew the attention of this Tribunal to Annexure-D4 letter for extension of equitable mortgage submitting that the blank lines has been left unfilled and that therefore, this document cannot be relied upon. The counsel for the defendants countered the above submission of the counsel for the applicants submitting that the 2^nd applicant has himself affixed his name and signature at the bottom of Annexure-D4 in token of execution of document and that the alleged blank portion of the document does not per se make it inadmissible in evidence or lose its evidentiary value. This Tribunal finds considerable force in the above submissions of the counsel for the defendants, since the 2^nd defendant has put his signature in Annexure-D4 and that the description of the title deeds pertaining to the secured asset has been furnished in Annexure-D4. The documents produced by the defendants such as Annexure-D3 and Annexure-D4 evidences the creation of equitable mortgage over the four items of the properties for the credit facilities availed by the 1^st applicant Firm.

¶62

It is not in dispute that in Annexure-D3, the quantum of credit facility is mentioned as Rs.6 Crores and that in Annexure-I demand notice the outstanding loan due is mentioned as Rs.6,60,00,000/-. Annexure-D3 was executed on 23.10.2020 for the credit facility availed whereas Annexure-I demand notice was issued on 29.12.2022 stating the outstanding loan due which is inclusive of accrued interest. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the

¶63

Page 6 of 11

¶64

SA No.671 of 2023

¶65

applicants that different amount has been mentioned in Annexure-I demand notice and Annexure-D3.

¶66

The applicants have omitted to aver in the S.A as to whether they were prompt in repayment of the outstanding loan due to the 1st defendant bank. Instead, they have averred that they had been servicing the account in well manner. No supporting documents has been produced by the applicants in order to prove the above averment. In Annexure-1 demand notice, it is clearly stated that since the borrowers committed default in repayment of the outstanding loan due, their loan account was classified as NPA on 24.12.2022. The applicants did not send any objection/representation to the demand notice refuting the above averment. It is averred by the defendants in their written statement that due to default, the loan account of the applicants was classified as NPA on 24.12.2022. Therefore, it is evident that since the applicants defaulted in repayment of the loan due, the loan account of the applicants came to be classified as NPA.

¶67

Annexure-D1 copies of acknowledgement cards produced by the defendants evidences the service of demand notice to the applicants. Therefore, the contention of the applicants that defendants failed to serve the demand notice to the applicants is incorrect.

¶68

Annexure-D2 copies of paper publications produced by the defendants disproves the contention of the applicants that possession notices were not published as per Rule 8 (2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002. In the written statement filed by the defendants, the date of publication of the possession notices is wrongly mentioned as 17.05.2023 instead of 07.05.2023. A perusal of Annexure-D2 copies of paper publications shows that possession notices were published on 07.05.2023. Therefore, this Tribunal does not find any substance in the submission of the counsel for the applicants that Rule 8 (2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 has not been complied with by the defendants.

¶69

A perusal of Annexure-VI, application and affidavit filed in MC No.677/2023, Annexure-IX application and affidavit filed in MC No.698/2023 and Annexure-XII application and affidavit filed in MC No.697/2023 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam shows that all the statutory requirements contemplated under Clause (i) to (ix) to the first proviso of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 has been complied with by the defendants. A perusal of Annexure-VII order passed in MC No.677/23, Annexure-X order passed in MC No.698/2023 and Annexure-XIII order passed in MC No.697/2023

¶70

Page 7 of 11

¶71

SA No.671 of 2023

¶72

shows that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam after having perused the contents of the affidavit and the documents produced along with the affidavit and after 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 infirmity in the above order.

¶73

The applicants have averred in the SA that Annexure – III sale notice cannot be considered as a sale notice since it was issued to sell the property of 10 Cents situated in Edappally North Village and no possession notice against the said property was issued. The applicants have admitted the receipt of Annexure – III sale notice which is dated 22.06.2023. The applicants did not file the SA challenging the sale notice within the prescribed period of limitation. This SA was filed on 09.11.2023, therefore, the applicants are not entitled to raise any issue in respect of Annexure – III sale notice in this SA. Be that as it may, the applicants have not averred in the SA as to whether sale was fructified or not pursuant to issuance of Annexure – III sale notice.

¶74

The applicants have failed to prove their case so as to get the reliefs sought for in the SA. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that the applicants are not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in this SA.

¶75

Resultantly, S.A No.671 of 2023 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶76

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23^rd day of June, 2026.

¶77

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 8 of 11

SA No.671 of 2023

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

¶82

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	29.12.2022	True copy of the demand notice issued by the defendant bank	Annexure-I
2.	04.05.2023	True copy of the possession notice in respect ofproperty of 41.38 cents.	Annexure-II
3.	04.05.2023	True copy of the possession notice in respect of property of 36.620 cents	Annexure-II(a)
4.	04.05.2023	True copy of the possession notice in respect of property of 5.50 cents	Annexure-II(b)
5.	22.06.2023	True copy of the sale notice issued by the defendant bank.	Annexure-III
6.	04.07.2023	True copy of the request submitted by the1^st applicant.	Annexure-IV
7.	27.07.2023	True copy of the judgment in W.P (C) No.24663/2023 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.	Annexure-V
8.	---	True copy of the application and affidavit filed in MC No.677/2023 on the files of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Ernakulam	Annexure-VI
9.	07.10.2023	True copy of the order in MC No.677/2023 on the files of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Ernakulam	Annexure-VII
10.	31.10.2023	True copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner in MC No.677/2023 on the files of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Ernakulam	Annexure-VIII
11.	---	True copy of the application and affidavit in MC No.698/2023 on the files of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam	Annexure-IX
12.	17.10.2023	True copy of the order in MC No.698/2023 on the files of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam.	Annexure-X
13.	25.10.2023	True copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner in MC No.698/2023.	Annexure-XI
14.	12.07.2023	True copy of the application and affidavitin MCNo.697/2023filed by	Annexure-XII

¶83

Page 9 of 11

¶84

SA No.671 of 2023

¶85

		the defendant bank.
15.	17.10.2023	True copy of the order in MC No.697/2023 on the files of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs),Ernakulam.	Annexure-XIII
16.	18.01.2024	True copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner	Annexure-XIV
17.	03.03.2023	True copy of demand notice issued by the defendant bank to M/s. Classic Steel Traders and the 2^ndand 3^rd applicants.	Annexure-A15
18.	16.08.2021	True copy of the supplemental confirmation letter executed by the 2^nd applicant and produced by the defendant bank as Annexure to the affidavit filed in MC No.677/2023 in CJM Court,Ernakulam.	Annexure-A16

¶86

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

¶87

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	---	True copy of the acknowledgment cards duly signed by the applicants.	Annexure-D1
2.	04.05.2023 & 12.05.2023	True copy of the possession notices and its news paper publication on the New Indian ExpressandDeshabhimani	Annexure-D2
3.	23.10.2020	True copy of the supplemental confirmation letter bythe2^ndapplicant	Annexure-D3
4.	26.02.2009	True copy of the letter of extension of Equitable mortgage.	Annexure-D4
5.	---	Original acknowledgment cards duly signed bythe applicants.	Annexure-D5
6.	04.05.2023	True copy of possession notice issued by the defendants.	Annexure- D6(a)
7.	04.05.2023	True copy of possession notice issued by the defendants.	Annexure- D6(b)
8.	04.05.2023	True copy of possession notice issued by the defendants.	Annexure- D6(c)
9.	07.05.2023	Original of page No.16 of the Hindu daily.	Annexure- D6(d)
10.	07.05.2023	Original ofpage No.9 of Deshabhimani	Annexure-

¶88

Page 10 of 11

¶89

SA No.671 of 2023

¶90

		daily.	D6(e)
11.	12.05.2023	True copy of the possession notice issued by the defendants.	Annexure- D7(a)
12.	17.05.2023	Original of page No.9 of The New Indian Express daily.	Annexure- D7(b)
13.	17.05.2023	Original of page No.10 of Deshabhimani daily.	Annexure- D7(c)
14.	26.02.2009	True copy of letter evidencing deposit of title deeds.	Annexure-D8
15.	23.10.2020	True copy of supplemental confirmation letter issued by the 2nd applicant.	Annexure-D9
16.	16.07.2025	True copy of the letter issued by the 2nd applicant.	Annexure-D10

¶91

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶92

Mj/

¶93

Page 11 of 11

Puthedath Metals v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Puthedath Metals v. Indian Overseas 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

Axis Bank versus Ashis Kumar

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank versus Nirmala

State Bank of India versus Shri Santosh Kumar Gupta & Anr.

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s Shyam Traders

Bank of India versus Car Laundary

Nataraj S versus Bank of Maharashtra