Dismissed

Sumi Thilakan v. Authorised Officer

Kerala HC19 Feb 2024WP(C)/2699/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Kerala High Court rejected the petitioner's challenge to coercive proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Quashing the petition based on settled legal principles, the court held that writ proceedings are not maintainable as the Act provides an efficient alternative remedy. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was not allowed as it is not maintainable; the impugned coercive proceedings were upheld.

Sumi Thilakan Vs Authorised Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 30TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 2699 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SUMI THILAKAN
AGED 39 YEARS, D/O K.K THILAKAN,
KODAKKY HOUSE, AMMADAM PARALAM,
THRISSUR, PIN – 680 563.

¶7

BY ADV

¶8

L.RAJESH NARAYAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 AUTHORISED OFFICER KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AYYANTHOLE BRANCH, AYYANTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 003.

¶11

2BRANCH MANAGER
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
AYYANTHOLE BRANCH, AYYANTHOLE P.O,
THRISSUR, PIN – 680 003.

¶12

BY ADV

¶13

P.C.SASIDHARAN, STANDING COUNSEL

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C) No.2699 of 2024

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2024

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court seeking to direct the respondent to defer further coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is a notice of Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur pursuant to an order under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

¶21

The grievance of the petitioner is relating to the proceedings initiated by the respondents under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act and the attempt of the respondents to take over and sell the secured asset provided by the petitioner.

¶22

W.P.(C) No.2699 of 2024

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

It is settled law that no writ would lie against the proceedings initiated by a financial institution under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others [(2010) 8 SCC 110] , the Hon’ble Apex Court declared that no writ petition shall be entertained against the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act at the instance of a defaulter since the statute provides for an efficacious alternate remedy.

¶25

In the judgment in Authorised Officer, State 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.

¶26

Following the judgment in Satyawati Tondon (supra), a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Anilkumar v. State Bank of India [2020 (2) KLT 756] declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation Act.

¶27

W.P.(C) No.2699 of 2024

¶28

: 4 :

¶29

In South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen

¶30

Mathew Philip [2023 (4) KLT 29] , the Apex Court held that when the legislature has provided a specific mechanism for appropriate redressal, the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances.

¶31

In Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and others (W.P.(C) No.30803/2023), this Court held that writ petition challenging any proceedings under the Securitisation Act is not maintainable since the aggrieved person has an effective and efficacious remedy before the Tribunal constituted under the Act which is competent to adjudicate the issues of fact and law, including statutory violations.

¶32

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.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶35

AMR

¶36

W.P.(C) No.2699 of 2024

¶37

: 5 :

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2699/2024

¶39

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶40

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.2.2022
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶41

Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED
29.5.2023 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR, KERALA
STATE COOPERATIVE BANK.

¶42

Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
22.6.2023 IN WPC NO.20375/2023.

¶43

Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
5.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER IN MC 810/2022 OF THE CJM
COURT, THRISSUR.

¶44

Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
10.10.2023 IN WPC NO.33156/2023.

¶45

Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
1.11.2023 IN WPC NO.36030/2023.

Sumi Thilakan v. Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumi Thilakan v. Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Mujeeb T., Vs Mr. Sachin Kumar Yadav IAS

Mubarak Vs Ranjith. D. IAS

Jose Poothokkaran Vs K. Meera, Rdo Ernakulam

Kelu Maliyekkal Vs Kottakal Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

K.T.George, Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

Mansoor Ali Vs the Canara Bank Ltd.