Dismissed

Sulaiman Kavungathodi v. Axis Bank

DRT20 Apr 2026SA/771/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitization Application under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's plea to set aside an Advocate Commissioner's notice for taking possession of a secured property. The Court held that the bank had strictly complied with statutory requirements, including valid service of demand and possession notices, and failed by the applicant to establish the agricultural nat

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sulaiman Kavungathodi versus Axis Bank — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2026)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 20^th DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 771 of 2023

¶6

Between

¶7

Sulaiman Kavungathodi,

¶8

S/o. Moidu, Kavungathodi House,

¶9

Panamaram, Wayanadu-670721.

¶10

Jamsheena Sulaiman,

¶11

W/o. Sulaiman Kavungathodi,

¶12

Kavungathodi House,

¶13

Panamaram, Wayanadu-670721.

¶14

--- Applicants

¶15

And

¶16

The Authorized Officer/Chief Manager, Axis Bank Ltd., Retail Assets Centre, RAC 2^nd Floor, Global Tower, “V” Zone Mall, Parayancherry, Kozhikode – 673 016.

¶17

--- Defendant

¶18

This Securitization Application coming on 13.01.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Sasidharan Nair M.N., Counsel appearing for the Applicants and Mr. Varugheese Cherian 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:

¶19

SA No.771 of 2023

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Securitisation Application was filed on 19.12.2023 seeking to set aside Annexure-A4 Advocate Commissioner notice and all consequent actions taken by the defendant bank.

¶22

The applicants availed home loan to a tune of Rs.1,23,00,000/from the defendant bank in the year 2021. Since they committed default in repayment of outstanding loan due, the loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 09.12.2022. Annexure-B1 demand notice dated 31.12.2022 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. The applicants neither sent any objection/representation to the demand notice nor did they clear off their liability due to the defendant bank.

¶23

The defendant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Kalpetta and filed Annexure-A1 application and A2 affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Annexure-A3 Order dated 22.07.2023 came to be passed in CMP 4020/2023 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner served notice dated 17.08.2023 Annexure-A4 to the applicants informing them that he would take physical possession of the secured asset on 18.08.2023. The applicants having aggrieved against the above measures have filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

¶24

The counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that higher rate of interest has been charged for the home loan and that they could not service the interest in full due to the excessive interest charged to their home loan account and that their loan account was hurriedly declared as Non-Performing Asset. Possession notice was not published and was not served to the applicants and it was not affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured asset. The secured asset is agricultural property which is exempted u/s 31 (i) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. Security interest has not been registered with the Central Registry. Therefore, Annexure-A3 order and A4 notice are liable to be set aside.

¶25

The counsel appearing for the defendant bank submitted that since the applicants defaulted in repayment of the outstanding loan due, their loan account was declared as Non-Performing Asset as per RBI guidelines and that objection or representation was not sent to the demand notice and that interest has been charged as per the terms of the loan agreement and that possession notice dated 20.03.2023 was served to the applicants and that it was published

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

SA No.771 of 2023

¶28

and that it was affixed and that defendant complied with all the mandatory requirements contemplated u/s 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 and that therefore, SA may be dismissed with cost to the defendant.

¶29

Annexure-B1 series copies postal receipts and postal track reports evidences the service of demand notice to the applicants. Indisputably, they failed to send any objection/representation to the demand notice raising the contention that excessive rate of interest has been charged. Further, the applicants have not produced any material before this Tribunal to substantiate their above claim.

¶30

Annexure-B2 series produced by the defendant bank evidences the service of possession notice to the applicants and its publication in newspapers and its affixture on the conspicuous part of the secured asset. Therefore, the contention of the applicants that possession notice was not published and affixed and it was not served to them is absolutely incorrect

¶31

The applicants have not produced any document or material before this Tribunal to prove their contention that secured asset is agricultural land. Even they did not raise this issue by sending any objection to the demand notice.

¶32

A perusal of Annexure-A2 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 by the defendant. 10. A perusal of Annexure-A3 order shows that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpetta after having perused the contents of the affidavit and the documents produced along with the affidavit and after having satisfied over the same, appointed Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. This Tribunal does not find any infirmity or procedural irregularity in the above order.

¶33

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.

¶34

Page 3 of 5

¶35

SA No.771 of 2023

¶36

Resultantly, S.A No.771 of 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 20th day of April, 2026.

¶38

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 4 of 5

SA No.771 of 2023

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

¶43

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	17.06.2023	Copy of petition filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Kalpetta in CMP No.4020/2023.	Annexure-A1
2.	17.06.2023	Copy of affidavit filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Kalpetta in CMP No.4020/2023.	Annexure-A2
3.	22.07.2023	Copy of Order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Kalpetta in CMP No.4020/2023.	Annexure-A3
4.	17.08.2023	Copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner	Annexure-A4

¶44

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

¶45

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	31.12.2022	Copy of demand notice along with its postal receiptsand postaltrack reports.	Annexure-B1 series
2.	20.03.2023	Copy of possession notice along with its postal receipts, publications and affixture photographs.	Annexure-B2 series
3.	---	Copy of certificate showing the registration of subject property with central registry.	Annexure-B3

¶46

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶47

Mj/

¶48

Page 5 of 5

Sulaiman Kavungathodi v. Axis Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulaiman Kavungathodi 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

Punjab National Bank versus Arun Singh

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Rjs Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Prashant Sarin and Ors.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Makeup by Sam

Mr Sahid Hossain Mondal versus Grihum Housing Finance Limited

Sabitri Tewari versus Icici Bank Limited