Dismissed

Vinitha P.B v. Authorised Officer

Kerala HC11 Mar 2024WP(C)/2839/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner aggrieved by a bank's SARFAESI security enforcement notice sought deferment of coercive proceedings and loan rescheduling. Citing precedents establishing that no writ lies against SARFAESI proceedings given the statutory tribunal remedy, the High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition dismissed on maintainability grounds.

Vinitha P.B 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 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 2839 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

VINITHA P.B
AGED 34 YEARS, W/O SESHAN,
THAYATTUPARAMBIL (H)
VELIYATHAMPARAMBU BEACH,
NAYARAMBALAM P.O ERNAKULAM,
PIN – 682 509.

¶7

BY ADV

¶8

L.RAJESH NARAYAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1AUTHORISED OFFICER
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NORTH
PARAVUR MAIN BRANCH, MAIN ROAD
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN – 683 513.

¶11

2BRANCH MANAGER
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NORTH
PARAVUR MAIN BRANCH, MAIN ROAD
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN – 683 513.

¶12

3 SESHAN T.S S/O SIVANANDAN THAYATTUPARAMBIL (H), VELIYATHAMPARAMBU BEACH, NAYARAMBALAM P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 509.

¶13

BY ADV

¶14

N. RAGHURAJ, FOR R1 AND R2

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C) No.2839 of 2024

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 11^th day of March , 2024

¶20

The petitioner is the surety in respect of a loan availed by the 3^rd respondent from the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Limited. He has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.

¶21

The petitioner sought for the following reliefs:

¶22

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction commanding the respondent to defer further coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 and grant such further time as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper so as to enable the petitioner to clear the overdue amounts in installments;

¶23

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction commanding the respondent to reschedule the loan and regularize the account after accepting the overdue amounts in installments;

¶24

(iii) Dispense with the production of translation of vernacular documents;

¶25

(iv) Issue any such other writ, direction or orders, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶26

W.P.(C) No.2839 of 2024

¶27

: 3 :

¶28

Ext.P2 challenged by the petitioner is a Security Enforcement Notice issued by the Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶30

and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2.

¶31

The grievance of the petitioner is relating to the proceedings initiated by respondents 1 and 2 under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the attempt of respondents 1 and 2 to take over and sell the secured asset provided by the petitioner.

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(C) No.2839 of 2024

¶34

: 4 :

¶35

SARFAESI Act at the instance of a defaulter since the statute provides for an efficacious alternate remedy.

¶36

In the judgment in Authorised Officer, State

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

In South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen 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.

¶40

W.P.(C) No.2839 of 2024

¶41

: 5 :

¶42

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.

¶43

In the light of the categorical pronouncements of

¶44

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

AMR

W.P.(C) No.2839 of 2024

¶50

: 6 :

¶51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2839/2024

¶52

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶53

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
22.8.2022ISSUEDBYTHE2ND
RESPONDENT.

¶54

Exhibit P2

¶55

TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 6.12.2022 UNDER
S.13(2) OF THE ACT.

¶56

Exhibit P3

¶57

TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
6.10.2022 IN WPC NO.28088/2022.

Vinitha P.B v. Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinitha P.B 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

Ramesh Kumar Vs K. Meera

Rajesh K.T, Vs State of Kerala

Canara Bank, Arm Branch Vs Sub Registrar

Tyny Mathew Vs Meera. K. IAS

Sankesh K.M Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal - I

Reghuthaman Vs the Chief Manager and Authorized Officer