A borrower challenged a notice issued by an Advocate Commissioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act through a writ petition. The Court held that writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings are not maintainable given the efficacious statutory remedy before the Tribunal, following binding precedents, and dismissed the petition.
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 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 41234 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
ASSAINAR HAJI
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. HASSANKUTTY, KODALI HOUSE,
VALLUVAMBAM, POOKKOTTUR, VALLUVAMBRAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-, PIN – 673642
BY ADV P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ
RESPONDENT:
MANJERI CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD
COURT ROAD, MANJERI P.O, MALAPPURAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, PIN – 676121
BY ADV K.VIDYASAGAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
WP(C) No.41234 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2024
The petitioner, who has availed a financial assistance
from the Manjeri Co-operative Bank Limited, approached this
Court seeking the following reliefs:
(i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P1 and all proceedings pursuant there to and declare that the same is illegal and unsustainable.
(ii) Alternatively, to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay the alleged amount due pursuant to Ext.P1 in 40 monthly instalments after giving due credit to the payments made by the petitioner by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or Order.
(iii) To grant such other relief in favour of the petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
2. The pleadings in the writ petition would indicate
that Ext.P1 impugned by the petitioner is a notice issued by
the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate’s Court, Manjeri under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
3
WP(C) No.41234 of 2023
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner is challenging the said notice invoking Section 226 of the Constitution of India.
4
WP(C) No.41234 of 2023
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.
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.
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.
WP(C) No.41234 of 2023
5
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.41234 of 2023
6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41234/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1
A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
27.11.2023FROMTHEADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition is maintainable against SARFAESI Act proceedings when an efficacious statutory remedy exists before the Tribunal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and othersRelied on
[(2010) 8 SCC 110] · Who else cites this
Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C.Relied on
[2018 (1) KLT 784]
Anilkumar v. State Bank of IndiaFollowed
[2020 (2) KLT 756]
South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen Mathew PhilipRelied on
[2023 (4) KLT 29]
Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and othersFollowed
(W.P.(C) No.30803/2023)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Assainar Haji
Manjeri Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd
N.Nagresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court