Dismissed

Suresh Kumar v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited

DRT11 Jun 2026SA/806/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Securitisation Application challenging possession notice under SARFAESI Act dismissed. Tribunal held applicants failed to prove agricultural nature of secured asset and procedural defects were not established. Statutory requirements substantially complied with.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application S.A No.806/2024 dismissed; no order as to costs.

Suresh Kumar versus Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 11th DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 806 of 2024

¶6

Between

¶7

Sureshkumar, S/o Vikraman Nair R. No.20/156, Sanjeev Manch, Chengannur, Alappuzha-682 301 Now residing at No.19/310 (CNRA-27) Nandavanam, Mundekkal Lane, S.N. Junction, Trippunithura, Ernakulam.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

M/s Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Deputy Vice President, C/515, Kanakia Zillion,

¶11

Junction of LBS Road & CST Road,

¶12

BKC Annexe, Near Equinox, Kurla (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra – 4000 070.

¶13

M/s Trinity Enterprises, No.22/214, Near Mini Bypass Road, Tripunithura, Ernakulam-682 301, Rep. by its Managing Partner.

¶14

R. Unnikrishnan Nair, Managing Partner, M/s Trinity Enterprises, Residing at SNRA 51, Krishnendu, Sastri Nagar, Maradu P.O., Ernakulam-682 304.

¶15

SA No.806 of 2024

¶16

Anu Thomas, W/o late Shiby Joseph, Partner, M/s Trinity Enterprises, Residing at Thumdathi House, Thellakam P.O., Ettumanoor, Kottayam – 686 016.

¶17

--- Defendants

¶18

This Securitization Application coming on 07.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ms. Jinsamol, Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Renjith R., Advocate for the 1^st defendant and that SA as against D2 to D4 having been dismissed and upon hearing arguments of learned Counsels for both the parties and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Securitisation Application was filed on 17.10.2024 seeking to declare that the proceedings initiated by the 1^st defendant u/s 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is not legally sustainable and to declare that Annexure-A3 and A4 are not maintainable as it does not comply with the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.

¶21

The applicant stood as guarantor for the overdraft credit facility of Rs.25,00,000/- availed by the 2nd defendant from Indus Ind Bank by creating equitable mortgage by deposit of title deed over his immovable property admeasuring an extent of 1.75 Ares comprised in Re. Sy. No.64 in Block No.0293 Nadama village, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam district. The defendants 3 and 4 also stood as the guarantors for the aforesaid credit facility.

¶22

Since the 2nd defendant defaulted in repayment of the outstanding loan due, the loan account was classified as NonPerforming Asset on 10.01.2021 and demand notice dated 07.12.2021 was issued to the applicant and guarantors calling upon them to repay the outstanding loan due within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice.

¶23

Since the applicant and defendants 2 to 4 failed to respond to the terms of the demand notice, the 1st defendant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Ernakulam and filed Annexure-A3 application and affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Order came to be passed in MC No.907/2022 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure-A4 notice to the applicant and the guarantors informing them that he would take physical possession of the secured asset on or after 25.07.2024. The applicant having aggrieved against the above measures filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

SA No.806 of 2024

¶26

The counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that Annexure-A4 application is liable to be set aside since it was not accompanied by an affidavit of the Authorized Officer and that the 1st defendant has not made any declaration in the affidavit as to the limitation of the application as provided under Sec. 14 (1) (b) (i) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 and that it is not stated in the affidavit that after issuance of the demand notice the debtor has not made any repayment towards outstanding loan due and that since the secured asset is agricultural property which iss exempted u/s 31 (i) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 and that the interest calculated is not in terms of the agreement made between the parties and that repayment made by the applicant has not been properly taken into account and that the S.A may be allowed as prayed for.

¶27

The counsel appearing for the 1st defendant submitted that 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 in respect of filing of Annexure-A3 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and that Annexure-A3 affidavit has been filed by the Authorized Officer of the 1st defendant and that 1st defendant has been authorized to act as an Authorized Officer as per the Board resolution dated 20.03.2021 and that secured asset is not an agricultural property and that the SA may be dismissed with cost to the 1st defendant.

¶28

The applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and filed W.P (C) No.11211/2024 seeking to direct the 1st respondent to regularize the loan account of the 3rd respondent firm and to grant time to pay the loan amount in equal monthly instalments. Annexure-A1 judgment came to be passed directing the applicant to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- within a period of one month and make a proposal for settlement of entire loan amount. Indisputably, the above direction was not complied with by the applicant.

¶29

The applicant has not produced any document before this Tribunal to prove his contention that the secured asset is agricultural land. He also did not send any objection to the demand notice stating that the secured asset is agricultural land. Therefore, the above contention of the applicant cannot accepted as correct.

¶30

A perusal of Annexure-A3 application and affidavit shows that application was filed by the Deputy Vice President of the 1st defendant reconstruction company in the capacity of the secured creditor and that affidavit was filed by the same Officer in the capacity of the Authorized Officer of the 1st defendant company. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit it is clearly stated that the petitioner is the competent authority to act as the Authorized Officer under the SARFAESI Act 2002 and as per Board of Resolution dated 20.03.2021. It is also seen

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

SA No.806 of 2024

¶33

that the above copy of the resolution has been produced as Document No.2 along with Annexure-A3 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. Hence, this Tribunal does not find any substance in the submission of the counsel for the applicant that Annexure-A3 affidavit was not filed by the Authorized Officer of the 1st defendant.

¶34

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 substantially complied with by the 1st defendant. Hence this Tribunal does not find any procedural irregularity in respect of filing of Annexure-A3 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. The applicant has not produced copy of the order passed in MC No.907/2022 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. It is also not the contention of the applicant that the order passed in MC No.907/2022 suffers from any illegality or infirmity.

¶35

This Tribunal having considered the above submission of both sides counsels and the pleadings put forth by both the parties, comes to a conclusion that the applicant has failed to prove his case so as to get the relief sought for in the S.A.

¶36

In view of the foregoing reasons, S.A No.806/2024 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 11th day of June, 2026.

¶38

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 4 of 5

SA No.806 of 2024

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

¶43

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	20.05.2024	True copy of the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 11211/2024 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.	Annexure-A1
2.	06.07.2024	True copy of the letter from the 1^st defendant.	Annexure-A2
3.	---	True copy of the MC petition No.907/2022 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Ernakulam	Annexure-A3
4.	08.10.2024	True copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner.	Annexure-A4

¶44

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶45

Mj/

¶46

Page 5 of 5

Suresh Kumar v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited

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

Uday Kumar versus Bank of India

State Bank of India versus a B Construction

Pawan Kumar Sahu versus PNB Housing Finance Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Rossette Grand Vacations and Resorts Pvt. Ltd.

Shri Jayant So Shyam Lohbare versus Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd.

Mr. Ramkumar Chunnilal Gupta and Another versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited