JUDGMENT

The present writ petition has been filed impugning Ext.P6 order passed in S.A No. 39/2024 by the Debt Recovery Tribunal -2, Ernakulam.

The Ext.P6 impugned order would read as under:-

“Advocate Keerthi K. Narayanan learned counsel for the defendant is present. IA.No.2047/2024 is allowed and record is advanced. Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the bank is withdrawing the securitization measure and hence the SA may be closed giving liberty to the defendant to initiate a fresh securitization measure. A separate memo is also filed in this regard.

On the other hand the learned counsel for the applicant contended basing upon the defective notice the applicant has suffered financial loss including filing of the present case. Hence sufficient cost may be imposed on the defendant. Heard. In the above backdrop, the SA is disposed and all the securitization measures initiated by the defendant from the stage of demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI ACT is set aside by giving liberty to the defendant to proceed afresh with the SARFAESI measure from the stage of issuance of demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI ACT in accordance with the law. Si