Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Rubeena Thansi K vs CANARA BANK on 10 April 2026
Fair Order
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM
DATED THIS 10th DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT: Su. WILLYAHM, B.Sc., M.L.
[DISTRICT JUDGE - Retd]
PRESIDING OFFICER
M.A No. 60 of 2026
in
S.A No. 66 of 2025
Between
1.
Sahad P., S/o. Abdulla P.
Perumbalathu House,
Kunduthodu, Eranjikode,
Edavanna, Malappuram 676541.
2.
Rubeena Thansi K.,
W/o. Sahad P.,
Perumbalathu House,
Kunduthodu, Eranjikode,
Edavanna, Malappuram 676541.
--- Petitioners/Applicants
And
1.
The Authorized Officer,
Canara Bank, Regional office,
Malappuram, 586/ABCD,
Varnam Arcade Machingal Bypass
Malappuram 676 509.
2.
Canara Bank, Edavanna Branch,
Malappuram, 586/ABCD,
Varnam Arcade Machingal Bypass
Malappuram 676 509
Represented by its Chief Manager.
--- Respondents/Defendants
MA No.60/2026 in SA 66/2025
This petition coming on 10.04.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Mr. V. Philip Mathews, Counsel appearing for the petitioners/
applicants and Mr. Isac T. Paul, Counsel appearing for the respondents/
defendants and upon hearing arguments of both sides’ Counsels and upon perusing the material records, this Tribunal delivered the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
1. M.A No.60/2026 in S.A No.66/2025:- This petition has been filed by the petitioners/applicants praying to recall the order dated 05.12.2025 and to pass fresh orders on it.
2. The counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the S.A, the petitioners submitted OTS proposal to the 2nd respondent bank and that since it was accepted, this Tribunal permitted the petitioners to withdraw the SA on 05.12.2025 on the ground that matter was settled between the petitioners and respondents. Since the petitioners could not pay the sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/- on or before 30.12.2025 as stipulated under OTS scheme, the petitioners sent request to extend the time and they have not received any official communication from the 2nd respondent bank. Therefore, the petitioners seek to recall the order dated 05.12.2025. The counsel appearing for the petitioners also drew the attention of this Tribunal to the provisions of Sec.17(7) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the provisions of Sec. 19 (25) and 22 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 submitting that this Tribunal has got power to recall the above order.
3. The counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submitted that once this Tribunal passed order permitting the petitioners to withdraw the SA and that SA has been dismissed s withdrawn, the above order cannot be recalled and that this petition which is not maintainable, may be dismissed.
4. The petitioners are the applicants in the SA which has been filed seeking to set aside Annexure-A5 possession notice and A11 sale notice and for other reliefs. During the pendency of the SA, the petitioners filed memo in ID No.20484/2025 on 05.12.2025 praying this Tribunal as follows:
“During the pendency of the proceedings, the matter has been amicably settled me and the defendant bank, as per the terms of the settlement letter dated 23.10.2025, which is annexed herewith.
In view of the said settlement, I humbly seek leave of this Tribunal to withdraw the present Securitization Application, with liberty to revive the same in the event of any breach of terms of the settlement. Therefore, I humbly requested this Tribunal may be pleased to record MA No.60/2026 in SA 66/2025
the settlement and permit me to withdraw the above Securitization Application with the aforesaid liberty.”
5. This Tribunal having heard the submission of both sides’ counsels and having perused the contents of the memo, permitted the applicants to withdraw the SA, but without giving any liberty to revive or restore the SA to file on the ground that after dismissal of the SA as withdrawn it cannot be revive or restore to fie as prayed for by the applicants.
6. This Tribunal on having perused the provision of Sec.17 (7) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the provisions of Sec.19 (25) and 22 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 is not convinced to accept the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioners that this Tribunal has power to restore the SA to file. The failure of the applicants to comply with the terms of the OTS proposal cannot be a justifiable reason to restore the SA to file in order to proceed further.
7. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that this petition is not at all maintainable.
Resultantly, this petition, M.A. No.60 of 2026 stands dismissed.
Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 10th day of April, 2026.
[Su. WILLYAHM]
PRESIDING OFFICER
Mj/