Dismissed

Muhammed Shameem v. Punjab National Bank

DRT2 Feb 2026SA/981/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application seeking to set aside a demand notice, a notice for physical possession by a Commissioner, and a CJM order. The Tribunal held that the invocation was within the limitation period and the statutory requirements under Section 14(1) were complied with.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Muhammed Shameem versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 2^nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 981 of 2024

¶6

Between

¶7

Muhammed Shameem, S/o. V. Abdu Salam, Prop: M/s VPS Agencies, Residing at IV/383, Vadakumburath House, Mankada, Pattiyil Paramba Palipuram P.O., Malappuram – 679 324.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

The Punjab National Bank Ltd. Malappuram Branch, PM Arcade, 1^st Floor, Ahmed Kurikkal Road, Down Hill, Malappuram 676519, Represented by Authorized Officer.

¶11

The Authorized Officer, The Punjab National Bank Ltd. Circle Sastra Centre, Shathabdi Bhavan, Mini Bypass Road, Govindapuram, Kozhikode -673 016.

¶12

--- Defendants

¶13

SA No.981 of 2024

¶14

This Securitization Application coming on 07.10.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Tony Thomas Inchiparambil, Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. Rajeevu L.G., Counsel appearing for the defendants and upon hearing arguments of learned Counsels for both the parties and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Securitisation Application was filed on 30.12.2024 seeking to set aside Annexure-A1 demand notice and A4 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner and to quash the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri and to set aside the measures initiated by the defendant and allow the applicant to upgrade the overdraft facility by paying the defaulted interest and also to permit him to regularize the term loan after paying the present arrears.

¶17

The applicant availed cash credit facility to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- from the 1^st defendant bank upon creation of equitable mortgage over his immovable property admeasuring an extent of 10.90 cents of land and the building thereon comprised in Re.sy.No.107/2 of Kottilangadi village, Perinthalmanna Taluk as the collateral security in favour of the 1^st defendant bank.

¶18

Due to default in repayment of the outstanding loan due, the loan account of the applicant came to be classified as Non-Performing Asset on 31.12.2019. Annexure-A1 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. The applicant neither sent any objection/representation to the demand notice nor did he clear off his liability due to the 1^st defendant bank.

¶19

Since the applicant failed to respond to the terms of the demand notice, Possession Notice dated 26.5.2022 Annexure-B1 was issued for taking physical possession of the secured asset. Annexure-B2 to B4 produced by the defendants evidences the affixture of the photograph on the secured asset and its publication in two leading newspapers, one in vernacular language of Mathrubhoomi edition dated 28.5.2022 and another in The Hindu edition dated 28.5.2022.

¶20

Subsequently, the defendants approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Manjeri and filed Annexure-A2 application and affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. AnnexureA3 Order dated 19.11.2024 came to be passed in MC No.1251/2024 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued notice dated 28.11.2024 Annexure-A4 to the applicant informing him that he

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

SA No.981 of 2024

¶23

would take physical possession of the secured asset on 05.12.2024. The applicant having aggrieved against the above measures filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

¶24

Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that classification of loan account as Non-Performing Asset is against the RBI Guidelines and Prudential Norms and that the amount mentioned in the demand notice is not correct and that possession notice was not published in the newspaper which has sufficient circulation in the concerned locality and that the step initiated by the defendants to take physical possession of the secured asset after expiry of more than five years from the date of issuance of the demand notice is barred as per Section 36 of the SARFAESI Act and that secured asset was not registered with the Central registry and that no valid and enforceable mortgage has been created by the applicant and that therefore, the SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶25

Counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that since the applicant defaulted in repayment of the outstanding loan, his loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset as per RBI guidelines and that valid security interest over the SA subject matter of the property has been created by deposit of title deed and that security interest has been registered with the central registry and that possession notice was published in two leading newspapers and that the defendants are entitled to initiate measures under the SARFAESI Act 2002 and the Rules made there under within a period of 12 years from the date of creation of security interest over the property and that all the statutory requirements contemplated u/s 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 has been complied with in respect of filing of the affidavit and that therefore the SA may be dismissed with cost to the defendants.

¶26

The applicant has not specifically pointed out in the SA as to how the classification of the loan account as Non-Performing Asset is against the RBI guidelines and its Prudential norms. Further, the petitioner having failed to send any objection/representation to the demand notice, is not entitled to raise the above issue at this stage.

¶27

The applicant having voluntarily deposited his title deed with the 1^st defendant bank as the collateral security for the availment for the aforesaid loan facility is estopped from contending now that no valid security interest has been created over his immovable property.

¶28

Though possession notice Annexure-B1 was issued as early as on 26.5.2022, it was not challenged by the applicant by filing SA. Annexure-B3 and B4 shows that possession notice was published in

¶29

Page 3 of 5

¶30

SA No.981 of 2024

¶31

two leading newspapers having wide circulation in the locality where the secured asset is situated.

¶32

The provisions under Sec.36 of the SARFAESI Act 2002 does not prohibit the secured creditor from taking measures u/s 13 (4) of the Act, unless his claim in respect of the financial asset is made within the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act 1963. Part V (62) to the Schedule of the Limitation Act 1963 prescribes the period of 12 years as limitation to enforce payment of money secured by a mortgagee or otherwise charged upon immovable property, when the money sued for becomes due. In the present case on hand, security interest was created over the immovable property on 31.10.2011 as evidenced from the perusal of the written statement of the defendants. Annexure-A1 demand notice was issued on 08.10.2021. Therefore, it is evident that the measure initiated by the defendants under the SARFAESI Act 2002 and the Rules made there under is within the period of limitation.

¶33

The applicant has not averred in the SA as to whether the statutory requirements contemplated under Clauses (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 was not complied with in respect of filing of Annexure-A2 affidavit. However, a perusal of the same shows that the aforesaid requirement has been complied with by the respondents. A perusal of Annexure-A3 order shows that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri 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.

¶34

The applicant has failed to prove his case so as to get the reliefs sought for in the SA. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that the applicant is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in this SA.

¶35

Resultantly, S.A No.981 of 2024 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2^nd day of February, 2026.

¶37

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 4 of 5

SA No.981 of 2024

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

¶42

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	08.10.2021	Certified copy of the demand notice issued bythe2^nddefendant	Annexure-A1
2.	14.10.2024	Certified copy of Sec.14 application along with affidavit filed by the Authorized Officer.	Annexure-A2
3.	19.11.2024	Certified copy of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri in MC No.1251/2024.	Annexure-A3
4.	28.11.2024	True copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner	Annexure-A4

¶43

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

¶44

Sl.	Date	Particulars
No.
1.	26.05.2022	True copy of the possession notice issued by the defendants.	Annexure-B1
2.	---	Photograph evidencing affixture of B1 in secured asset.	Annexure-B2
3.	28.05.2022	True copy of the paper publication of B1 in the Mathrubhumi daily.	Annexure-B3
4.	28.05.2022	True copy of the paper publication of B1 in the Hindu daily.	Annexure-B4
5.	20.06.2022	True copy of the OTS letter submitted bythe applicant to the 1^stdefendant	Annexure-B5
6.	07.03.2023	True copy of the judgment in W.P (C) No.4805 of 2023 by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.	Annexure-B6
7.	---	True copy of CERSAI registration of the secured asset.	Annexure-B7

¶45

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶46

Mj/

¶47

Page 5 of 5

Muhammed Shameem v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Shameem v. Punjab National 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

State Bank of India versus Braj Mohan Sharma

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Bhole Crain Services, through Its, Proprietor- Shri Parash Ram Sharma

Punjab National Bank versus Manish Kumar Pandey

Rafiqul Alam And Anr. versus Canara Bank

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ms Shri Hari Industries

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Thimmanna and Another