Petitioners challenged bank recovery proceedings and sought to regularize a defaulted loan account via writ. The court held writ remedy unavailable for title claims or collateral challenges to final SARFAESI proceedings, directing the aggrieved party to approach the designated Tribunal under the Act. Petition dismissed.
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.
WPC 25038/2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI
WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1941
WP(C).No.25038 OF 2019(D)
PETITIONER/S:
W/O. LATE VENUGOPALAN, MUNNAM PADINJATATHIL HOUSE, AYATIL P O, KOLLAM-691021.
3 SARATH CHANDRAN, W/O. LATE VENUGOPALAN, GANDHINAGAR, MUNNAM PADINJATATHIL HOUSE, AYATIL P O, KOLLAM-691021.
BY ADV. SRI.E.A.BIJUMON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, YMCA BUILDING, STATUE, M G ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 MRS.GIRIJA KUMARI, W/O. MR. RAJAN I N, HOUSE NO.344, INCHIPULLIKADAVIL, KALLUR, KADUKUTTY, CHALAKKUDI-680309.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 25038/2019
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of November 2019
The petitioners assert that the petitioners are the owners of property measuring 10 cents in Re-Sy No.331/21 in Vadakkevila Village, Kollam District. The said property is kept as security by respondent nos.2 and 3 with 1 st respondent Bank. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have committed default in repayment of outstanding amount in the loan account and resulted in initiation of recovery proceedings. This Court is not proposing to unnecessarily refer to the case of petitioners for claiming exclusive title to the mortgaged property. Inasmuch by appreciating the writ prayers it can be stated that the writ remedy for any purpose relating to the independent right and title claimed by the petitioners or to take up collateral challenge to proceedings which have become final under SARFAESI Act, is unavailable under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
WPC 25038/2019
3
2 . To appreciate the scope of writ petition the writ prayers are stated thus:
“(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order setting aside the entire proceedings taken by the bank and allow the petitioner to regularize the loan account, granting instalment facility for the payment of the arrears of the loan account, after deducting the payments made by the petitioner.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the bank settle the liability through giving an opportunity under One Time Settlement Scheme, through waiving of the compound interest as well as the penal interest.
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the bank to proceed as per law and give proper opportunity to settle the liability.
(iv) issue such other further reliefs as are necessary in the interest of justice.”
3 . Advocate for petitioners has not canvassed any ground
which attracts the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The Advocate
states that the right forum of petitioners for remedies is elsewhere to
establish the right to property independently. The prayers as noted
supra are not entertained within the discretionary jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 and, secondly, that the person aggrieved
WPC 25038/2019
4
by the steps initiated under SARFAESI Act can certainly move the Tribunal having jurisdiction in this behalf. Hence, this Court is
compelled to dismiss the writ petition for the above reasons.
Writ Petition dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
S.V.BHATTI
JUDGE
JS/jjj
WPC 25038/2019
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE NO.1462/2012 DATE |
FINAL REPORT ON CRIME D 04.08.2012. |
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE 11989/2012 DATED |
JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 06.06.2012. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE NO.16149/2012 DAT |
JUDGMENT IN WP(C) ED 08.10.2012. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE NO.112/2013 DATED |
JUDGMENT IN R.P. 08.02.2013. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE 210/2013 DATED 31 |
FINAL ORDER IN S.A NO. .12.2016. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE NO.87/2011 DATED |
FINAL ORDER IN O.A 06.02.2012. |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE 03.01.2012. |
SALE DEED NO.26/2012 DATED |
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE COPY OF THE 03.01.2012. |
SALE DEED NO.25/2012 DATED |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised to quash SARFAESI Act recovery proceedings regarding a defaulted loan.
Whether issues regarding exclusive title to mortgaged property or grievance against steps under SARFAESI Act are maintainable in writ.
Whether person aggrieved by SARFAESI proceedings can move High Court instead of the designated Tribunal.
KAMALAMMA
PRAMOD KUMAR
SARATH CHANDRAN
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD
RAJAN I N
MRS.GIRIJA KUMARI
S.V.Bhatti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
