Dismissed

Jayamma v. Mattancherri Mahajanik/Sarvajanik Urban Cooperative Bank

DRT14 Jul 2026SA/99/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a possession order and demand notice under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the bank substantially complied with statutory requirements despite a clerical date error in the affidavit, upheld the MAG order, and denied the request to produce account statements.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed. No order as to costs.

Jayamma versus Mattancherri Mahajanik/Sarvajanik Urban… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 14th DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶4

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

¶5

S.A No. 99 of 2026

¶6

Between

¶7

Jayamma,

¶8

W/o late Dileepkumar N.A.

¶9

Residing at 20/63, Kadathu Kadavil, Sreenarayana Road, Palluruthy P.O., Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam 682006.

¶10

Arjun D., S/o late Dileepkumar N.A. Residing at 20/63, Kadathu Kadavil, Sreenarayana Road, Palluruthy P.O., Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam 682006.

¶11

Vishnupriya,

¶12

D/o late Dileepkumar N.A. Residing at 20/63, Kadathu Kadavil, Sreenarayana Road, Palluruthy P.O., Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam 682006.

--- Applicants

SA No.99 of 2026

And

The Mattancherry Mahajanik Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. No.665 Palliyarakkavu, Ernakulam – 682 002, Represented by its Authorized Officer.

¶17

--- Defendant

¶18

This Securitization Application coming on 08.06.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ms. Kiran, represented the Counsel for the Applicants and Ms. Benedicta Vembly, Counsel 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:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Securitisation Application was filed on 10.02.2026 seeking to set aside Annexure-A9 order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and Annexure-A10 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner and to declare that the entire proceedings initiated by the defendant bank are illegal, arbitrary, unjust, null and void ab initio and to restrain the defendant bank from proceeding further and to direct the defendant bank to produce the statement of accounts in respect of the loan facilities availed by the applicants and to award cost of this proceedings.

¶21

The 1st applicant’s husband Sri. Dileepkumar N.A. availed housing loan facility from the defendant bank. The 1st applicant stood as guarantor to the above credit facility. She has created equitable mortgage over her immovable property as described in Annexure-A3 demand notice by deposit of title deeds with the defendant bank. The 2nd applicant is the son and the 3rd applicant is the daughter of the principal borrower and the 1st applicant.

¶22

After availment of the credit facility, the husband of the 1st applicant died on 19.02.2021 as evidenced from the perusal of Annexure-A2 death certificate. Due to default committed in repayment of the outstanding loan due to the defendant bank, the defendant bank initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 with issuance of Annexure-A3 demand notice and Annexure-A5 possession notice.

¶23

Page 2 of 11

¶24

SA No.99 of 2026

¶25

Thereafter, the defendant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Ernakulam and filed Annexure-A6 application and Annexure-A7 affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Annexure-A9 Order dated 09.04.2025was passed in MC No.319/2025 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure-A10 notice to the applicants informing them that he would take physical possession of the secured asset on 22.05.2025. The applicants having aggrieved against the above measures filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

¶26

The counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that without the consent of the principal borrower, the defendant bank unilaterally converted the housing loan into an OD facility for which the title deed was not mortgaged and that the loan account was classified as NPA against the RBI guidelines without serving the notice of NPA classification to the applicants and that demand notice was not served on the applicants and that it was not affixed on the secured property and that it was also not published in the newspapers and that therefore, the applicants were deprived of their statutory right of submitting objection u/s 13 (3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and that possession notice was not served to the applicants.

¶27

The counsel for the applicants submitted further that security interest was not created over the secured asset with the central Registry and that the title deeds were not deposited with the defendant bank with intention to create charge and that hence the property is not the secured asset and that since the loan had been insured, after the borrower’s death, the defendant bank ought to have invoked the insurance policy and that the Officer who filed AnnexureA7 affidavit is not the Authorized Officer of the defendant bank, since he is not be authorized by the Board of Directors of the defendant bank.

¶28

The counsel for the applicants submitted further that AnnexureA9 order is a printed/cyclostyle format order, which was passed mechanically without application of mind and that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam did not record his satisfaction on each of the statutory requirements after verifying the affidavit and that affidavit does not comply with the statutory requirements under Sec. 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and that satisfaction of the Magistrate was not recorded in the order and that therefore, SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶29

In support of her above submissions, she has cited the following judgments.

¶30

Page 3 of 11

¶31

SA No.99 of 2026

¶32

(i) K.J. Doraiswami Vs. Indian Overseas Bank [2010 (4) CTC 449] (ii) M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hero Fincorp Ltd. [2017 (16) SCC 741; (iii) Standard Chartered Bank Vs. V. Noble Kumar [2013 (9) SCC 620] (iv) Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Assets Reconstruction Co. [2014 (6) SCC]

¶33

The counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that the housing loan was fully closed on 10.11.2017 and that upon fresh application, a separate overdraft facility of Rs.15,00,000/- was sanctioned on 10.11.2017 and that fresh loan documents including demand promissory note and memorandum of title deeds were duly executed by the borrower by deposit of title deeds and that since the loan account became irregular, the loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 30.07.2019 as per RBI guidelines and that demand notice was served to the borrower and the applicants and that the borrower and the 1st applicant did not send any objection for the demand notice and that possession notice was served to the applicants and that it was published in two leading newspapers and that Annexure-A9 order is not a mechanical and stereo type order and that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam after having satisfied with the compliance of the statutory requirements in the affidavit, passed order for taking physical possession of the secured asset and that therefore, SA may be dismissed with cost to the defendant bank.

¶34

Availment of housing loan by the borrower and the 1st applicant from the defendant bank and the closure of the said loan is admitted by the applicants in the S.A. Annexure-A1 copy of the passbook produced by the applicants also shows the closure of the above loan account. Annexure-B4 produced by the defendant consists of copies of memorandum of deposit of title deeds and proceedings of the committee of the defendant bank. A perusal of the same shows that upon submission of application for O.D facility by the deceased borrower, a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was sanctioned and that he had deposited title deeds and executed letter of memorandum of title deed and letter of continuity. The deceased borrower had also submitted application dated 30.3.2019 for renewal of the aforesaid Overdraft facility. He had also executed promissory note dated 31.3.2019 for the receipt of the above said O.D facility of Rs.15,00,000/-. The 1st applicant sent a letter to extend the time to the defendant bank to grant time to repay the loan. Therefore, the contention of the applicants that without the consent of the borrower and the 1st

¶35

Page 4 of 11

¶36

SA No.99 of 2026

¶37

applicant, the defendant bank unilaterally converted the housing loan into O.D facility is absolutely false and a blatant lie.

¶38

The application as referred to in the preceding paragraph to grant extension of time to repay the loan amount towards OD facility submitted by the 1st applicant itself sufficient to prove the contention of the defendant that the loan account of the OD facility became irregular. Therefore, this Tribunal finds that since the borrower and the 1st applicant defaulted in repayment of the outstanding loan due, the loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset as per RBI guidelines.

¶39

Annexure-B2 series which consists of copies of postal receipts and acknowledgment card produced by the defendant shows that demand notice sent to the borrower Dileepkumar was returned with endorsement ‘absent’ and that the demand notice sent to the applicants was returned with endorsement ‘unclaimed’ which means that the applicants wantonly failed to receive the demand notice. Therefore, the service of demand notice on the applicants is deemed to have been completed. Since the borrower, who is the husband of the 1st applicant had died, the notice was returned with endorsement ‘absent’. The applicants nowhere averred in the SA that they had intimated the death of the borrower to the defendant bank prior to issuance of the demand notice. Therefore, this Tribunal considers that publication of the demand notice in newspapers and affixture of the demand notice on the conspicuous part of the secured asset was not required.

¶40

The defendant has produced Annexure-B3 series in order to show that possession notice sent to the 1st applicant was received by her and that possession notice sent to the applicants 2 & 3 was also received by the 1st applicant on behalf of the applicants 2 and 3. Hence, it is evident that possession notice was sent to all the applicants. Be that as it may, Annexure-A5 possession notice was issued on 04.10.2024, the applicants did not file the SA challenging the same within the prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, they are not entitled to challenge the possession notice in the S.A which was filed on 10.02.2026.

¶41

The defendant has produced Annexure-B1 copy of CERSAI registration certificate in order to show that security interest over the secured asset has been registered with the Central Registry on 11.12.2024. Hence, the contention of the applicants that no security interest over the secured assets has been registered with the central Registry is absolutely incorrect.

¶42

Page 5 of 11

¶43

SA No.99 of 2026

¶44

A perusal of Annexure-A7 affidavit filed in MC No.319/25 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 complied with by the defendant. None of the clauses referred to above does contemplate the production of copies of loan agreements evidencing creation of security interest over the property by the borrower in favour of the secured creditor. In paragraph 5 of Annexure-A7 affidavit, it is clearly averred that respondents have created security interest over the petition scheduled property by deposit of title deed and details of the title deed. Further, photocopies of the settlement deeds, memorandum of deposit of title deeds and loan agreement has also been produced along with Annexure-A6 application. Hence the contention of the applicants that the aforesaid documents has not been produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam is absolutely incorrect.

¶45

It is the submission of the counsel for the applicants that the defendant failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Sec. 14 (1) (i) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. Clause (i) to the first proviso of Sec. 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 contemplates that aggregate amount of financial assistance granted and the total claim of the Bank as on the date of filing of the application shall be mentioned in the affidavit. In Annexure-A7 affidavit, the date of outstanding amount at the time of filing of application is mentioned as 20.02.2015. Annexure-A6 and A7 were signed by the 2nd defendant on 20.02.2025. The above date has been mentioned both in Annexure-A6 and A7. The M.C was filed only in the year 2025. Hence it is evident that due to typographical error, the date was mentioned as ‘20.02.2015’ instead of ‘20.02.2025’ in paragraph 7 of Annexure-A7 affidavit. Annexure-A8 copy of e-court proceedings downloaded from the official e-court website shows that Annexure-A6 and A7 were e-filed on 25.02.2025. The date ‘20.02.2025’ has to be taken as date of filing. The delay occurred in e- filing of Annexure-A6 and A7, ie. on 25.02.2025 could not have caused any prejudice to the applicants. The Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam could not have been mislead due to the delayed filing of Annexure-A6 and A7.

¶46

Even assuming for argument sake that, Clause (i) to the first proviso of Sec. 14 (1) of SARFAESI Act 2002 has not been strictly complied with by the defendant in respect of filing of Annexure-A6 affidavit, all other statutory requirements contemplated in Clause (ii) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 has substantially been complied with. In Tulsi Rocks Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Bank of India and others (MANU/TL/0034/2019) the Hon'ble High Court of State of Telungana has held as follows:

¶47

Page 6 of 11

¶48

SA No.99 of 2026

¶49

“Wherever this Court finds that the parameters indicated in Clauses (i) to (ix) of the first proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act are broadly complied with, the Court is bound to invoke the doctrine of ‘substantial compliance’. It must be remembered that Clause (i) to (ix) of the first proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act merely provide the form in which the essential averments for an application under Section 14 of the Act are to be made. Therefore, what is important, is the substance and not the form.”

¶50

In the light of dictum laid down in the above cited judgment, this Tribunal holds that since there is substantial compliance of the statutory requirements contemplated u/s Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002, the mere failure of the defendant bank to mention the outstanding amount as on the date of filing of AnnexureA1 application and affidavit will not render Annexure-A1 as invalid.

¶51

A perusal of Annexure-A9 order shows that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam after having perused the contents of application and affidavit and the documents filed in support of the affidavit and having satisfied over the same, appointed Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. It can easily be noticed that Annexure-A9 order is neither a stereo-type order nor is a preformatted order as submitted by the counsel for the applicants. Hence the above decisions relied on by the counsel for the applicants cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶52

One of the reliefs sought for by the applicants in the SA is to direct the defendant to produce the statement of accounts in respect of the loan facilities availed by the applicants. The defendant has already produced copy of sanction letter for grant of OD facility as Annexure-B4. Be that as it may, the relief sought for by the applicants does not fall under any of the measures referred to under Sec. 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act 2002. It is for the applicants to approach the defendant bank to get the aforesaid document. Hence, no such direction can be granted by this Tribunal to the defendant bank to produce the same.

¶53

In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Tribunal holds that the applicants have failed to prove their case so as to get the reliefs sought for in the SA. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that the applicants are not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in this SA.

¶54

Page 7 of 11

¶55

SA No.99 of 2026

¶56

Resultantly, S.A No. 99 of 2026 stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶57

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of July, 2026.

¶58

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 8 of 11

SA No.99 of 2026

S C H E D U L E

District : Ernakulam Sub District : Kochi Taluk : Kochi Taluk Village : Idakochi Sy. No. : 1046/2 Extent : 3.500 cents

¶64

Description

¶65

All that piece and parcel of the land and building comprised in Sy. No.1046/2 of Idakochi Village, Palluruthy South Muri, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District within the limits of Kochi Corporation, having an extent of 3.500 cents together with a residential building bearing Kochi Corporation Door No. CC 21/263, standing thereon and heldl by the applicants by virtue of Settlement Deed No.572/2000 registered in Book No.1, Volume 1140, pages 267 to 269 of the SRO, Kochi.

¶66

Boundaries

¶67

East : Property of Purushan North : Pathway West : Pathway South : Property of Shashi

¶68

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶69

Page 9 of 11

¶70

SA No.99 of 2026

¶71

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

¶72

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	--	True copy of the relevant pages of the passbook evidencing the closure of the housingloan.	Annexure-A1
2.	---	True copy of the death certificate of Dileepkumar N.A.	Annexure-A2
3.	27.05.2024	True copy of the demand notice issued by the defendant bank.	Annexure-A3
4.	---	True copy of the acknowledgement card showing the demand notice was returned.	Annexure-A4
5.	04.10.2024	True copy of the possession notice issued by the defendant bank	Annexure-A5
6.	20.02.2025	True copy of the application filed by the defendant bank in MC No.319/2025 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Ernakulam	Annexure-A6
7.	20.02.205	True copy of the affidavit filed by the defendant bank in MC No.319/2025 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Ernakulam	Annexure-A7
8.	---	True copy of the e-Court proceedings download from the official e-Courts website.	Annexure-A8
9.	09.04.2025	True copy of the order passed in MC No.319/2025 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Ernakulam	Annexure-A9
10.	08.05.2025	True copy of the Advocate Commissioner notice issued to the 1^st applicant.	Annexure-A10
11.	08.01.2026	True copy of the communication issued by the Assistant Registrar General, Cochin.	Annexure-A11
12.	---	True English translation of Annexure- A11.	Annexure- A11(a)

¶73

Page 10 of 11

¶74

SA No.99 of 2026

¶75

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

¶76

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	---	True copy of the CERSAI registration certificate.	Annexure-B1
2.	27.05.2024	True copy of the demand notice issued to the borrower and guarantor along with postal receipt and AD cards with endorsement addressee absent.	Annexure-B2 series
3.	04.10.2024	True copy of the possession notice along with English translation and AD cards showing acceptance and postal receipts.	Annexure-B3 series
4.	31.03.2019	True copy of the document relating to the sanction/grant of OD facility in favour of late Dileepkumar N.A by the defendant bank and execution of MOD by the borrower.	Annexure-B4
5.	21.12.2019	True copy of the letter/representation submitted by the legal heirs of the borrower to the defendant bank requesting extension of time for repayment of the outstanding loan due.	Annexure-B5
6.	04.10.2024	True copy of the Hindu newspaper daily and Kerala Kaumudi daily publication ofthe possession notice.	Annexure-B6

¶77

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶78

Mj/

¶79

Page 11 of 11

Jayamma v. Mattancherri Mahajanik/Sarvajanik Urban Cooperative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayamma v. Mattancherri Mahajanik/Sarvajanik Urban Cooperative Bank

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

Bank of Baroda versus Roshan Ara

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Noorani Garments

Manju Devi versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S National Industries

M/S Shree Tirupati Finisher versus City Union Bank Limited

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Metro Agencies