Dismissed

Muhammed Navas, v. the Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited NO.1758

Kerala HC29 May 2024WP(C)/34912/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a bank's notice for sale of property issued under the SARFAESI Act. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the court held that writ proceedings are not maintainable as the statute provides an efficacious alternate remedy.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; relief for quashing the sale notice and granting twelve months' time to pay the debt denied; writ of certiorari not issued.

Muhammed Navas, Vs the Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited… — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 29^TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 34912 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MUHAMMED NAVAS, AGED 56 YEARS, PROPRIETOR BECCA TRADERS, KAKKOTH PARAKKAL HOUSE, MANNARMALA PO, PERINTHALMANNA PIN – 679325.

¶7

BY ADVS. C.S.MANU DILU JOSEPH T.B.SIVAPRASAD V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN ANANDHU SATHEESH C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR C.A.ANUPAMAN ALINT JOSEPH MANJU E.R.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.1758, URBAN TOWER, PATTAMBI ROAD, PERINTALMANNA, KERALA, PIN - 679322, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶10

2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,

¶11

THE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.1758, RECOVERY DEPARTMENT HEAD OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA PB.NO.10, URBAN BANK BUILDING, PATTAMBI ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, PIN – 679322.

¶12

BY ADVS. JAYASREE K.P. JOHN JOSEPH

¶13

W.P.(C)No.34912 of 2023

¶14

:2:

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C)No.34912 of 2023

¶17

:3:

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Dated this the 29^th day of May, 2024

¶20

The petitioner, who has availed a loan of ₹1 Crore from

¶21

the 1^st respondent-Urban Co-operative Bank in the year 2014

¶22

and against whom the Bank has initiated proceedings under

¶23

the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, has approached

¶24

this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

¶25

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P2 and quash Ext.P2.

¶26

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant twelve months’ time to the petitioner to pay the entire debt claimed in Ext.P2.

¶27

(iii) This Hon'ble court may be pleased to accept the vernacular Exhibits,translated copy of the same shall be furnished as and when required by this Hon'ble Court. ”

¶28

W.P.(C)No.34912 of 2023

¶29

:4:

¶30

Ext.P2 sought to be challenged by the petitioner, is

¶31

a notice for sale of immovable property issued by the Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 read with the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

¶32

It is settled law that no writ would lie against the

¶33

proceedings initiated by a financial institution under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. In United Bank of India v.

¶34

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.

¶35

In the judgment in Authorised Officer, State

¶36

Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KLT 784] , the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that no writ petition would lie

¶37

W.P.(C)No.34912 of 2023

¶38

:5:

¶39

against the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act in view of the statutory remedy available under the said Act.

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

In Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and

¶43

others (W.P.(C) No.30803/2023), this Court held that writ

¶44

W.P.(C)No.34912 of 2023

¶45

:6:

¶46

petition challenging any proceedings under the Securitisation

¶47

Act is not maintainable since the aggrieved person has an

¶48

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.

¶49

In the light of the categorical pronouncements of law

¶50

made by the Apex Court and by this Court, the above writ petition is not maintainable and it is dismissed.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH

JUDGE

ams

W.P.(C)No.34912 of 2023

¶56

:7:

¶57

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34912/2023

¶58

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶59

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO. KL10020700858/2023 OF KARYAVATTOM VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK DATED 01/04/2023 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20/09/2023 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 13-10-2023 NUMBERED AS 149/2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER KARIYAVATTOM

Muhammed Navas, v. the Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited NO.1758

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Navas, v. the Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited NO.1758

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

Rahul P.K, Vs Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths

Suja Siju, Vs M/S.State Bank of India

Satheesh Kumar, Vs the Authorized Officer

Vasanthi P.M. Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Muthu Bindhu Vs Bank of Baroda

Nazar S Vs the Authorized Officer