The Kerala High Court held that Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act prevents civil courts from entertaining appeals seeking stays on actions initiated by financial institutions under that Act. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/28TH ASWINA, 1939
FAO.No. 166 of 2017 ()
I.A.NO.668/2017 IN OS NO.181/2016 OF THE SUB COURT, NORTH PARUR
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:PLAINTIFF
NAVIN THOMAS,
AGED 41 YEARS,S/O.A.V.THOMAS,AREECKAL HOUSE, AJN-228,NAYATHODE ROAD,ANGAMALY-683572.
BY ADVS.SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY) SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR SMT.AMRIN FATHIMA
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.N. Ravindran & Devan Ramachandran, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -
F.A.O.No.166 of 2017
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th October, 2017
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
This appeal was heard quite for some time today. However, during the submissions we made it known to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri Babu Karukapadath that our jurisdiction in this case is inherently impeded on account of the rigor of Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act”). This is because what the appellant wants in this proceedings is a stay of the steps that have been initiated by the financial institution, viz. the second respondent herein, invoked by them under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The essential contention of the appellant, as we can see from the pleadings on record and the submissions made at the Bar, is that the secured assets against which steps have been initiated by the second respondent is, in fact, property which belongs to the appellant and his contention is that the first respondent, who has created such interest in the property has done so by manipulating a document shown to be a sale deed in his favour executed by the appellant.
2
FAO 166/2017
FAO 166/2017
3
SARFAESI Act.
This appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, however with liberty to the appellant to invoke all his remedies as may be available to him under the provisions of the other statutes including Debt Recovery Act and SARFAESI Act, as would be permitted and sanctioned by law, and nothing contained in this judgment would stand or would militate against such rights and he would be at liberty to contend all his plea before the appropriate forum including the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
(P.N. Ravindran, Judge)
(Devan Ramachandran, Judge)
kav/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to grant an injunction against steps taken by a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act.
Whether an appeal seeking stay of SARFAESI proceedings is maintainable in a civil court.
Whether the appellant's alternative remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal precludes its appeal in this forum.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Abdu v. Authorised Officer, Federal Bank Ltd.Distinguished¶2
Abdu v. Authorised Officer, Federal Bank Ltd. (2016 (3) KLT 342)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Navin Thomas
Wilson Thomas
M/s. L & T Housing Finance Ltd.
P.N. Ravindran
Devan Ramachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
