Allowed

K M George v. Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

DRT29 Apr 2026SA/813/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application to set aside securitization proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, ruling that the process was illegal due to the bank's failure to prove service of the mandatory demand notice.

What did the court decide?

The securitization application was allowed and the securitization proceedings were set aside. Liberty was granted to the defendant to proceed afresh from the issuance of the demand notice.

K M George versus Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Dated this the 29^th day of April,2026

¶4

Securitization Application No.813/2024

¶5

Between

¶6

K.M George, S/o Mathai, Kollamparembil House, Parathanam P.O., Kottayam District - 686 514.

¶7

…..Applicant.

¶8

And

¶9

Kerala Bank, Kottayam Regional Office, PB.No.140, Central Junction, Kottayam, PIN-686 001 represented by its Chief Manager,

¶10

The Authorized officer, Kerala State Co-Operative Bank, PB.No.140, Central Junction, Kottayam, PIN 686 001. …Defendants

¶11

This Securitization Application having been heard on 01.04.2026 in

¶12

the presence of Advocate Subhash Syriac for the applicant and Advocate Sabitha C.A for the defendants and stood over to this

¶13

day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶14

F I N A L O R D E R

¶15

This SA is filed by the applicant under S.17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

¶16

SA/813/2024

¶17

¶18

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’) praying set aside the securitization proceedings.

¶19

Brief facts of the case :

¶20

2.1. The applicant availed financial support from the defendant in the year 2015 by mortgaging the subject matter property to the extent of 4.5 Cents of immovable property. Due to illness of the applicant loan cannot be repaid in time.

¶21

2.2. The defendant issued a possession notice on 24.01.2024

¶22

calling the applicant to pay the amount of Rs.23,06,037/- out standing on 24.01.2024. It is claimed that demand notice was not issued to the applicant and the possession notice was also not duly served.

¶23

2.3 The applicant initiated a proceeding before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam to take possession of the secured asset. An advocate commissioner is appointed by Chief Judicial Magistrate on vide order dated 05.11.2024. It is claimed that the statutory requirement in filing the application u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act is not duly complied and the applicant has filed the SA to set aside the securitization proceedings.

¶24

SA/813/2024

¶25

¶26

Though the defendant appeared in this case after receipt of the summons, no written statement is filed by the defendant. The learned counsel for the defendant appeared at the time of arguments and raised oral contentions that there is no illegality in the securitization proceeding.

¶27

From the respective case of the applicant and the defendants, the following points emerge for adjudication in this case:

¶28

(i) Whether the securitization proceeding initiated by the defendants suffers from any illegality or irregularity?

¶29

(ii) Whether the applicant is entitled to get any relief in this SA?

¶30

FINDINGS:

¶31

Point Nos.(i) & (ii): -

¶32

In this securitization proceeding, the applicant has challenged non compliance of the statutory requirement including non-service of the demand notice. No material is placed by the defendant showing compliance of statutory requirement in issuing the demand notice and possession notice. In the absence of any service of the demand notice the securitization proceeding is not sustainable. The applicant has valid ground to raise the issue in

¶33

SA/813/2024

¶34

¶35

this proceeding. In absence of any material the securitization proceeding is held illegal and the applicant is entitled to get relief in setting aside the securitization proceedings. Hence, all the points framed are answered against the applicant.

¶36

Hence it is ordered: -

¶37

ORDER

¶38

In view of the foregoing reasons, the SA is allowed and

¶39

the securitization proceeding is set aside giving liberty to the defendant to proceed with the securitization proceeding afresh starting from the stage of issuance of the demand notice in accordance with the law.

¶40

In view of the disposal of the SA the stay application, bearing IA No.4431/2024, is hereby closed.

¶41

(Dictated to steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 29^th day of April, 2026)

¶42

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

¶44

SA/813/2024

¶45

Documents on the part of the applicant

¶46

Annexures Date Particulars of documents

¶47

Annexure-A1 24.01.2024 True copy of the possession notice issued to the applicant by the defendant bank. Annexure-A2 .. True English translation of Annexure A1. Annexure-A3 05.11.2024 True copy of the notice of the Advocate commissioner in M.C.No.234/2024, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam.

¶48

Documents on the part of the defendant -Nil

¶49

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶50

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶51

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶52

Dated this the 29^th day of April,2026

¶53

SA No.813/2024

¶54

Between

¶55

K.M George, S/o Mathai, Kollamparembil House, Parathanam P.O., Kottayam District - 686 514. …Applicant

¶56

And

¶57

Kerala Bank, Kottayam Regional Office, PB.No.140, Central Junction, Kottayam, PIN-686 001, represented by its Chief Manager, and Ors. …Defendants

¶58

F I N A L O R D E R

K M George v. Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K M George v. Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

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 Manpreet Kumar

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus M/S Prasad Broom Stick Co. and Ors.

State Bank of India versus Muni Royal

Nawal Singh Verma versus Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Ms Shiddi Sai Traders Prop Sujata Ghatraj and Anr.

M/S Linsa Medicals versus State Bank of India