Petitioner challenged a SARFAESI Act notice. Court held it lacks jurisdiction as alternative statutory remedies exist, citing Supreme Court precedent, and allowed withdrawal with liberty to pursue those remedies.
Closed as withdrawn allowing petitioner to invoke alternative statutory remedies.
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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1940
WP(C).No. 5675 of 2019
PETITIONER:
SHIBU.C, AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.SKARIACHEN, MUKALUVILA VADAKKATHIL, PUNUKKANNOR, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN- 691504.
BY ADV. SRI.SUSHANTH.J.
RESPONDENTS:
1 AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, CHINNAKKADAA, KOLLAM, PIN- 691001.
2 BRANCH MANAGER,
THE KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KUNDARA BRANCH, KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN- 691501.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN-SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 5675 of 2019
2
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 notice issued by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity), as being illegal and unlawful.
WP(C).No. 5675 of 2019
3
to him, before the alternative statutory Forum, subject to the laws and prescriptions of Limitation.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
rp
WP(C).No. 5675 of 2019
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.01.2019 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE SALE/AUCTION NOTICE DATED 07.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this Court can entertain a writ challenge to a SARFAESI Act notice issued by a bank when alternative statutory remedies are available.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union Bank of India v. Satyawati TondonFollowed¶21
Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon ((2010) 8 SCC 110) · Who else cites this
Authorised Officer, SBT v. MathewFollowed¶21
Authorised Officer, SBT v. Mathew (ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479) · Who else cites this
SHIBU.C
1 AUTHORISED OFFICER AND 2 BRANCH MANAGER, THE KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
