Dismissed

Mohamed Ali v. South Indian Bank

DRT13 Jan 2026SA/763/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal held that the applicant failed to prove the secured asset was agricultural property exempt from rescue measures. Finding the applicant was a chronic defaulter and had not challenged earlier notices, the application to set aside possession proceedings and direct the bank was dismissed with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application (SA No.763 of 2023) standing dismissed; no order as to costs.

Mohamed Ali versus South Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 13^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶4

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

¶5

SA No.763 of 2023

¶6

Between

¶7

Muhammed Ali, S/o. Mohammed, Parammal House, Epikkad, Edapatta, Malappuram District – 679 326

¶8

….Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

The South Indian Bank Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Officer/

¶11

Chief Manager, Regional Office,

¶12

Kozhikode, 1^st Floor, Happy Towers,

¶13

Ward No.7, Manachira,

¶14

Vaikom Mohammed Basheer Road, Kozhikode, Kozhikode District – 673 001

¶15

The Authorised Officer, The South Indian Bank Ltd., Regional Office, Kozhikode. Ward No.7, Manachira, Vaikom Mohammed Basheer Road, Kozhikode, Kozhikode District- 673 001

¶16

--- Defendants

¶17

This Securitization Application coming on 06.11.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Jesneeth, Counsel representing Mr. P. Samsuddin, Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Sunil Shankar Advocate appearing for the defendants and upon hearing arguments of learned Counsels for both the parties and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶18

SA No.763 of 2023

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Securitisation Application was filed on 14.12.2023 seeking to set aside Annexures – A1 to A4 and to declare that the secured assets are not liable to be proceeded with under the SARFAESI Act, 2002; and to direct the defendants not to proceed with the further steps to dispossess the applicant and family of the secured assets.

¶21

The applicant availed an agricultural loan to the tune of Rs.23,90,000/- from the 1^st Defendant Bank upon creating equitable mortgage by deposit his title deeds pertaining to the immovable property situated in Sy. No.232, Edupatta Village, Perinthalmanna Taluk, Malappuram District which is the SA subject matter of the property in favour of the 1^st Defendant Bank. Due to default committed in Re-payment of loan dues, his loan account was classified as non-performing asset on 04.09.2021.

¶22

Annexure A1 demand notice dated 27.12.2021 was issued to the applicant calling upon him to pay the outstanding loan due within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The applicant neither sent any objection/representation to the demand notice nor did he clear off his liability due to the 1^st Defendant Bank. Therefore, the defendants issued Annexure A2 possession notice dated 03.08.2022 to the applicant for symbolically taking possession of the secured asset. The applicant did not challenge the above possession notice.

¶23

The defendants approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri and filed application and affidavit under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri. Order came to be passed in CMP No.4002/2022 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure A4 notice dated 26.07.2023 to the applicant informing him that he would take physical possession of the secured asset on 26.07.2023. The applicant having aggrieved of the above order has filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra .

¶24

The counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not a chronic defaulter and that he made regular paments of EMIs and that hence the loan account of the applicant was not liable to be treated as Non-Performing Asset and that secured asset is agricultural property and that it is mentioned in the demand notice that standing crops in the land has been given as security for the loan and that therefore it is exempted in view of the provisions of Sec.13 (i) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 and that the defendants have suppressed

¶25

Page 2 of 5

¶26

SA No.763 of 2023

¶27

the nature of the land which is the paddy land in Annexure-A3 petition and affidavit and that the total value of the secured asset is more than Rs.1 Crore and that the amount due to the 1^st defendant bank is Rs.35,00,000/- and that hence the defendants are not justified in proceeding with coercive actions at this stage.

¶28

Per contra, the counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that since the applicant defaulted in repayment of the outstanding loan due, his loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 4.9.2021 and that the applicant did not challenge Annexure-B2 possession notice and that secured asset is not agricultural property and that it is a residential property and that no agricultural operations are being carried out in the property and that there is no illegality in the measures initiated u/s 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 and that therefore the SA may be dismissed.

¶29

In Annexure-A1 demand notice sent to the applicant, it is clearly mentioned that since he defaulted in repayment of the outstanding loan due, his loan account was classified as NonPerforming Asset. The applicant did not send any objection/ representation stating that his loan account was being properly serviced and that he did not commit any default in repayment of the outstanding loan due. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that the applicant is not a chronic defaulter and his loan account was not liable to be classified as Non-Performing Asset is absolutely incorrect.

¶30

The applicant failed to challenge Annexure-A2 possession notice by filing SA within the stipulated period. Further, there is no specific challenge in the SA against issuance of the possession notice.

¶31

The applicant has not produced any material before this Tribunal to prove his contention that secured asset is agricultural property and that agricultural operations is being carried on in the property and that it is a paddy land. Hence, the above contention of the applicant is liable to be rejected. The applicant has not averred in the SA as to whether the statutory requirements contemplated under Clause (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 has not been complied with in respect of filing of AnnexureA3 affidavit. However, a perusal of Annexure-A3 affidavit shows that all the statutory requirements contemplated under Clause (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 has been complied with. The applicant has not produced copy of the order passed in CMP No.4022/2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri. In any event, there is no averment in the SA as to whether the above order suffers from any infirmity or illegality. Without challenging the above order, the mere challenge of AnnexureA4 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner is unsustainable. In

¶32

Page 3 of 5

¶33

SA No.763 of 2023

¶34

any event, the applicant has not proved his case so as to get the relief sought for in the SA.

¶35

In view of the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that the applicants are not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in this SA.

¶36

Resultantly, S.A No.763/2023 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13^th day of January, 2026.

¶38

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 4 of 5

SA No.763 of 2023

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

¶43

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	27.12.2021	True copy of the demand notice	Annexure-A1
2.	03.08.2022	True copy of the possession notice	Annexure-A2
3.	-----	True copy of the petition and the affidavit filed in support of the petition in Crl.MP No.4022/2022 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri.	Annexure-A3
4.	26.07.2023	True copy of the Advocate Commissioner’snotice	Annexure-A4
5.	12.10.2023	True copy of the judgment in W.P.(c) No.32807/2023 of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala.	Annexure-A5

¶44

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

¶45

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	…..	True copy ofthe CERSAI registration	Annexure-B1
2.	03.08.2022	True copy of the possession notice dated 03.08.2022 and acknowledgment card ofthe possession notice.	Annexure-B2
3.	….	True copy of the paper publication of the possession notice.	Annexure- B2(a)
4.	….	True copy of the photographs evidencing affixture.	Annexure- B2(b)
5.	…	True copy of the Sec.14 petition and affidavit.	Annexure-B3

¶46

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶47

Mj/

¶48

Page 5 of 5

Mohamed Ali v. South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Ali v. South Indian 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

Uco Bank versus M/S Laxmi Sweet and Dairy

Hdfc Bank versus Rahul Dubey

State Bank of India versus Smt Baby Roy Prop Of Ms Divya Trading Co(Proprietorship Firm)

Punjab National Bank versus Sri Santosh Kumar Prasad Gupta and Anr.

Abhijay Gupta versus Icici Bank Limited

Arkey Enterprise and Ors. versus Hdfc Bank