Dismissed

Sidheeq Muthiripparamban v. Manjeri Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.

DRT9 Feb 2026SA/794/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s sectioning application challenging the bank’s recovery measures under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that retrospective registration of security interest does not nullify prior enforcement and statutory requirements for notices and affidavits were complied with.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application No.794/2023 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sidheeq Muthiripparamban versus Manjeri Cooperative Urban Bank… — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 9^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 794 of 2023

¶6

Between

¶7

Sidheeq Muthiripparamban, Muthiripparamban House, Panarkkodu Road, Nellikkuth P.O., Malappuram – 676 122.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

The Authorized Officer, Manjeri Co-operative Urban Bank, Court Road, Manjeri P.O., Malappuram – 676 121.

¶11

--- Defendant

¶12

This Securitization Application coming on 17.12.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Jithendran S., Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. K. Vidyasagar 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:

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Securitisation Application was filed on 22.12.2023 seeking to set aside all the steps taken by the defendant under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and order payment of compensation to the applicant for the loss sustained by the illegal act of the defendant.

¶15

SA No.794 of 2023

¶16

The applicant availed a loan of Rs.13,00,000/- on 15.06.2016 from the defendant bank upon creation of equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds over his immovable property comprised in Sy. Nos.502/4, 501/4 and 501/6 in Payyanad village, Eranad Taluk, Malappuram District, with the defendant bank.

¶17

Due to default in repayment of the outstanding loan due, his loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 17.09.2016 and Annexure-A1 demand notice dated 11.09.2018 was issued to the applicant calling upon him to repay the outstanding loan due within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice. Annexure-B1 postal receipt and acknowledgment card produced by the defendant evidences the service of demand notice to the applicant. The applicant neither sent any objection/representation to the demand notice nor did he clear off his liability due to the defendant bank.

¶18

Therefore, Annexure-B2 possession notice dated 11.11.2019 was issued for symbolically taking physical possession of the secured asset.

¶19

Subsequently, the defendant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Manjeri and filed Annexure-A2 application and affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Order came to be passed in CMP No.1613/2020 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued notice dated 14.12.2023 Annexure-A3 to the applicant informing him that he would take physical possession of the secured asset. The applicant having aggrieved against the above measures has filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

¶20

The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after classification of loan account as Non-Performing Asset, the defendant bank applied interest to the applicant’s account and that it is contrary to the RBI guidelines and that the date of classification of loan account as Non-Performing Asset is not stated in Annexure-A1 demand notice as well as in Annexure-A2 petition and affidavit and that secured assets were not registered with the Central Registry and that no proof for the same was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri and that no document has been produced to show that the applicant has created security interest over his immovable properties and that therefore, the SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶21

The counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that since the applicant defaulted in repayment of the outstanding loan due, his loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset as per RBI

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

SA No.794 of 2023

¶24

guidelines and that Annexure-B1 evidences the service of demand notice to the applicant and that classification of loan account as NonPerforming Asset need not necessarily be stated in the demand notice and in the affidavit filed u/s 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 and that secured asset has been registered with the Central Registry on 22.10.2021 and that since the loan was availed by the applicant on 15.06.2016, it is not mandatory to register the security interest with the Central Registry at that point of time since the operation of Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI Act 2002 came into force on 24.01.2020 on issuance of notification dated 26.12.2019 by the Department of Financial Services in the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India and that 2016 Amendment Act was not made applicable retrospectively as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Sales (2022 KHC 5615) and that all the statutory requirements contemplated under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 has been complied with and that therefore, SA may be dismissed with cost to the defendant.

¶25

Neither the provisions of Sec. 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 nor Rule 3 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 does mandate the mentioning of date of classification of the loan account as Non-Performing Asset in the demand notice. Hence this Tribunal does not find any force in the above submission of the counsel for the applicant.

¶26

Clauses (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 does not contemplate the production of copy of memorandum of deposit of title deeds in order to show the creation of security interest over the immovable properties, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, for taking physical possession of the secured asset. Clause (ii) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 mandates the secured creditor to declare that the borrower has created security interest over his properties and that the bank is holding a valid and subsisting security interest over the properties. In Annexure-A2 petition and affidavit it is clearly stated that the respondent (applicant herein) has created security interest by way of mortgage in respect of his immovable properties fully described in the petition and that the bank is holding a valid and subsisting security over such properties. Therefore, this Tribunal does not find any force in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the bank has not produced any document or memorandum of title deeds before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri in order to show that the applicant has created security interest over his immovable properties.

¶27

The provisions of Sec. 26 D of the SARFAESI Act 2002 reads that no secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise the right of the

¶28

Page 3 of 6

¶29

SA No.794 of 2023

¶30

enforcement of the securities under Chapter III unless the security interest created in its favour by the borrower has been registered with the Central Registry. It cannot be disputed that Department of Financial Services in the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India issued a notification appointing 24^th January, 2020 as the date on which Chapter-IV A became operational with effect from that date. In Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Sales (2022 KHC 5615) the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has held in paragraph 96 of its judgment that these substantial changes, remedial in nature, having been brought in force for the first time amount to substantive law and cannot, therefore, be given retrospective effect. Admittedly, the applicant availed the credit facility on 15.06.2016. Therefore, the failure of the defendant to register the security interest over the secured asset with the Central Registry prior to initiation of the measures under the SARFAESI Act 2002 and the Rules made there under will not nullify such measures. However, the defendant has registered the security interest with the Central Registry on 22.10.2021 as evidenced from Annexure-B12, copy of Asset ID Based search report.

¶31

The applicant has not averred or contended in the S.A as to whether the statutory requirements contemplated under Clauses (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 has been complied with by the defendant bank in respect of Annexure-A2 affidavit in CMP No.1613/2020 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri. However, a perusal of Annexure-A2 shows that the aforesaid mandatory requirements has been complied with by the defendant.

¶32

There is no specific challenge by the applicant with regard to the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri in CMP No.1613/2020 appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset, without challenging the same the mere challenge of Annexure-A3 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner is not sustainable. In any event, the applicant has failed to prove his case so as to get the reliefs sought for in the S.A. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that the applicant is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in this SA.

¶33

Resultantly, S.A No.794/2023 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9^th day of February, 2026.

¶35

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 4 of 6

SA No.794 of 2023

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

¶40

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	11.09.2018	Certified copy of the demand notice alongwith Englishtranslation.	Annexure-A1
2.	11.12.2020	Certified copy of CMP No.1613/2020 affidavit and application before the ChiefJudicial Magistrate Court,Manjeri	Annexure-A2
3.	14.12.2023	True copy of the Advocate Commissioner notice.	Annexure-A3

¶41

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

¶42

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	19.09.2018	True copy of the postal receipt which is seen that the applicant received Annexure-A1 demand notice along with itsEnglishtranslation.	Annexure-B1
2.	11.11.2019	True copy of possession notice issued by the defendant to the applicant along with itsEnglishtranslation.	Annexure-B2
3.	16.11.2019	True copy of the postal receipt which is seen that the applicant received Annexure-B2 possession notice.	Annexure-B3
4.	---	True copy of the photo which shows the possession notice affixed on the wall near the front door of the house in the mortgaged property.	Annexure-B4
5.	16.11.2019	True copy of the paper publication of possession notice in Malayala Manorama daily along with its English translation.	Annexure-B5
6.	16.11.2019	True copy of the paper publication of possession notice in Chandrika daily alongwith itsEnglishtranslation.	Annexure-B6
7.	18.09.2021	True copy of the sale notice along with its English translation.	Annexure-B7

¶43

Page 5 of 6

¶44

SA No.794 of 2023

¶45

8.	06.11.2021	True copy of the sale notice along with itsEnglishtranslation.	Annexure-B8
9.	08.11.2021	True copy of the postal receipt which seen that the applicant received Annexure-B8 sale notice.	Annexure-B9
10.	29.11.2021	True copy of the sale notice issued by the defendants to the applicant along with itsEnglishtranslation.	Annexure-B10
11.	30.11.2021	True copy of the postal receipt which seen that the applicant received Annexure-B10 sale notice along with its Englishtranslation.	Annexure-B11
12.	---	True copy of the Asset Id Based Search Reportissued by CERSAI	Annexure-B12

¶46

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶47

Mj/

¶48

Page 6 of 6

Sidheeq Muthiripparamban v. Manjeri Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidheeq Muthiripparamban v. Manjeri Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Pooja Nanda

Karur Vysya Bank versus Vivek Choudhary

Bank of Baroda versus Mr. Kapil Kumar

Som Pal Dhingra versus Icici Bank Limited

R Mallikarjuna Setty versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Prameela