The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 13(4) and 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. Relying on settled law and the availability of effective remedies under the Act, the Court held that no writ lies against such proceedings.
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
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 3576 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MUAAD MOHAMMED ASHRAF, AGED 24 YEARS
S/O. LATE MOHAMMED ASHRAF P.K., FATHIMAS,
KANNAPURAM, CHERUKUNNU, CHERUKUNNU P.O.,
KANNUR, PIN – 670301
BY ADVS.
MATHEW KURIAKOSE
G.GIREESH
J.KRISHNAKUMAR (ADOOR)
MONI GEORGE
SHAJI P.K.
PREETHU JAGATHY
ARUN.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 M/S. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT T.B. ROAD, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, PIN - 6800012 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER M/S. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SIB HOUSE, CHALAD ALAVIL ROAD, CHALAD, KANNUR,, PIN - 6700143 THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., KANNUR MAIN BRANCH, SWADESHI SHOPPING COMPLEX, BANK ROAD, KANNUR, PIN – 670001BY ADV P.A.AUGUSTINE(AREEKATTEL)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
WP(C) No.3576 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2024
The petitioner, who has availed a financial assistance
from the South Indian Bank Limited and who faced proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction quashing Exts.P2 and P3 notices; and further proceedings pursuant thereto;
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction commanding respondent No.1 to regularize and reschedule the repayment in the financial transactions referred to in Exts.P2 and P3 notices, and permitting the petitioner and others against whom the proceedings are initiated as per Exts.P2 and P3 notices to discharge the liability of the defaulted instalments by making payment of amount in monthly instalments over a period of 24 months and by continuing the payment of ensuing instalments within the rescheduled repayment period;
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction commanding respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to continue the proceedings pursuant Exhibits P2 and P3 notices;
(iv) Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in
3
WP(C) No.3576 of 2024
the circumstances of the case; and (v) Award costs of these proceedings to the petitioner.
petition, would indicate that those are notices issued under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
4
WP(C) No.3576 of 2024
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.
6. 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.
5
WP(C) No.3576 of 2024
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.
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
spk
WP(C) No.3576 of 2024
6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3576/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS IN O.A. NO.
782 OF 2023 ON THE FILES OF THE DEBTS
RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P2
Exhibit P3
A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
01.11.2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
AND OTHERS BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
UNDER SECTION 13(4) OF THE SARFAESI
ACT R/W. RULE 8(1) OF THE SECURITY
INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, 2002
A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
16.01.2024 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
AND OTHERS UNDER SECTION 13(8) OF THE
SARFAESI ACT AND RULE 8(6) OF THE
SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES,
2002
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition is maintainable against proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution against proceedings under the Securitisation Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KLT 784]Relied on¶30
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Muaad Mohammed Ashraf
Ms. South Indian Bank Ltd.
The Authorised Officer, Ms. South Indian Bank Ltd.
The Branch Manager, Ms. South Indian Bank Ltd.
N. Nagaresuh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court