Allowed

Babu v. Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

DRT29 May 2026SA/928/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the bank's defenses and allowed the applicant's Securitization Application. The bank failed to prove proper service of the demand notice under S.13(2) or issuance of a valid possession notice under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act. Consequently, the securitization proceedings were set aside.

What did the court decide?

The securitization proceeding is set aside. The defendant is directed to give proper credit of the expenditure charged towards the initiation of the securitization proceeding in the loan account.

Babu 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 May,2026

¶4

Securitization Application No.928/2024

¶5

Between

¶6

Babu, S/o Lakshmanan, Iratt House, Elthuruth Desom, Methala, Thrissur. …Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

The Kerala State Co-operative Bank, Kodungallur Branch, (formerly Trissur District Co-operative Bank Ltd.) TDC Building, East Nada, Kodungallur, Thrissur, Rep. by its Authorised Officer. …Defendant

¶9

This Securitization Application, having been heard on 27.03.2026 in the presence of Advocate Vinod Jabbar for the applicant and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶10

F I N A L O R D E R

¶11

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

¶12

SA/928/2024

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

Brief facts of the case :

¶16

2.1 The applicant availed loan of Rs.12,00,000/- from the defendant on 20.11.2014 by mortgaging the subject matter property described in paragraph 5(a) of the application.

¶17

2.2 Due to irregular repayment of the loan the same was classified as NPA followed by issuance of the demand notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶18

2.3 The applicant claims that the demand notice was not served on him nor the same was supported by any material placed by the defendant bank.

¶19

2.4 The applicant also claims that the proceedings initiated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur in Crl.MP. No.11611/2024 u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act is illegal. The statutory requirements in filing such application are not duly complied and the advocate commissioner cannot take the possession of the same. Hence, the applicant claims for setting aside the securitization proceedings.

¶20

SA/928/2024

¶21

¶22

The defendant filed written statement but the same was not accepted due to some defects. It was brought to the notice of the learned counsel appeared for the defendant but no step taken by the defendant to rectify the defect in the written statement nor he appeared in the hearing.

¶23

In view of the claim of the applicant the following points required adjudication in this case:

¶24

(i) Whether the securitization proceeding is legally sustainable against the present applicant.

¶25

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

¶26

Point Nos.(i) & (ii)

¶27

The applicant has claimed that the demand notice was not served on him and the proper step was not taken for service of the demand notice on him. The defendant has produced one demand notice with one paper publication in Malayalam Language without the translation. The defendant has not produced any publication of such demand notice in two leading newspapers having sufficient circulation in the locality. So also, no material is placed showing affixture of the demand notice on the outer door or at the conspicuous part of the house or building where the applicant

¶28

SA/928/2024

¶29

¶30

borrower ordinarily resides. So also, defendant has not produced any material showing compliance of the statutory requirement in issuing the possession notice. Since the applicant has challenged the non-compliance of the statutory requirement, the defendant has bounden duty to produce the materials showing compliance of the statutory requirement. In absence of the same the applicant is entitled to get relief in setting aside the securitization proceeding. Both the points are answered in favour of the applicant.

¶31

Hence, it is ordered: -

¶32

ORDER

¶33

In view of the foregoing reasons, the SA, is allowed and the securitization proceeding is hereby set aside, with a direction to the defendant to give proper credit of the expenditure in the loan account charged towards initiation of the securitization proceeding.

¶34

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

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH]

PRESIDING OFFICER

SA/928/2024

Documents on the part of the applicant

¶40

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-A1	23.08.2024	^{True copy of the Sec.14 Application} and Affidavit.
Annexure-A2	01.11.2024	True copy of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur in Crl.M.P No.11611/2024.
Annexure-A3	09.12.2024	True copy of the Notice of the Advocate Commissioner.

¶41

Documents on the part of the defendant - Nil

¶42

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶44

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶45

Dated this the 29^th day of May,2026

¶46

SA No.928/2024

¶47

Between

¶48

Babu, S/o Lakshmanan, Iratt House, Elthuruth Desom, Methala, Thrissur. …Applicant

¶49

And

¶50

The Kerala State Co-operative Bank, Kodungallur Branch, (formerly Trissur District Co-operative Bank Ltd.) TDC Building, East Nada, Kodungallur, Thrissur, Rep. by its Authorised Officer. …Defendant

¶51

F I N A L O R D E R

Babu v. Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu 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

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Aby Abraham

RRaju Kalidoss versus Canara Bank

Sajan S versus Yes Bank

Vinod Kumar Gupta versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Marvel Metals Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Mr B S Girisha versus Dcb Bank Limited