Borrower sought instalment facility and challenged a SARFAESI Section 13(4) possession notice. The Court held the writ petition was not maintainable given the efficacious alternate remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, following Apex Court and Division Bench precedent, and dismissed it.
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 N.NAGARESH
MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 16TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 152 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
VINOD P
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O ACHUTHAN, PARIYARATH HOUSE, WANDOOR P.O.,
WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.,
PIN – 679328
BY ADV K.VIDYASAGAR
RESPONDENT:
THE CANARA BANK
WANDOOR BRANCH, WANDOOR P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER.,
PIN – 679328
BY ADVS.
GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M
K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984)
JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526)
KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003)
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006)
RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.152 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of February, 2024
The petitioner, who has availed a Business Loan of ₹23.60 lakhs from the respondent-Bank in the year 2016, approached this Court seeking to permit the petitioner to clear the liability referred to in Ext.P1 by way of 20 equal monthly instalments. The petitioner also challenges Ext.P1.
Bank under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner states that due to Covid-19 pandemic, there occurred default in repayment of loan instalments. If a breathing time is given, the petitioner can clear the dues.
WP(C) NO.152 OF 2024
3
4 . When this writ petition came up for admission, this Court passed an interim order on 08.01.2024 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of ₹8 lakhs on or before 31.01.2024. Coercive proceedings were directed to be deferred for a period of one month. The said amount has not been paid by the petitioner even as on date.
WP(C) NO.152 OF 2024
4
and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
WP(C) NO.152 OF 2024
5
Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KLT 784] , the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that no writ petition would lie against the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act in view of the statutory remedy available under the said Act.
WP(C) NO.152 OF 2024
6
In the light of the categorical pronouncements of law made by the Apex Court and by this Court, the above writ petition is not maintainable and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
hmh
WP(C) NO.152 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 152/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
UNDER SECTION 13(4) OF SARFAESI ACT
DATED 20.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit-P2TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF INSPECTION
DATED 07.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER IN CRL.M.P.NO.1819/2023 IN
M.C.NO.181/2023.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against SARFAESI possession proceedings when an alternate statutory remedy exists before the DRT.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and othersFollowed¶7
[(2010) 8 SCC 110] · Who else cites this
Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C.Relied on¶8
[2018 (1) KLT 784]
Anilkumar v. State Bank of IndiaRelied on¶9
[2020 (2) KLT 756]
South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen Mathew PhilipRelied on¶10
[2023 (4) KLT 29]
3 provisions across 2 enactments
VINOD P
THE CANARA BANK, WANDOOR BRANCH
N.NAGARESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court