The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging notice proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Relying on Supreme Court and Kerala High Court precedents establishing that efficacious remedies exist within the Act, the Court held no writ lies against such proceedings.
None; the writ petition was declared not maintainable and dismissed.
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
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 4181 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MUTHU BINDHU AGED 46 YEARS, W/O RAVI KUMAR LAKSHMI NIVAS, CHEPPAD, PALLIPAD, NANGIARKULANGARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA NOW RESIDING AT H. NO.XIX/652, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, RAMAPURAMMURI, KEERIKKAD P.O., PATHIYOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 690508.
BY ADV P.V.SOBHANA
RESPONDENTS:
1 BANK OF BARODA REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, NRI SPECIALIZED BRANCH, KALLELIL GREEN TOWN, KANDIYOOR, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 690103.
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CHIEF MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA, NRI SPECIALIZED BRANCH, KALLELIL GREEN TOWN, KANDIYOOR, MAVELIKARA , ALAPPUZHA – 690103.
BY ADVS. ANEESH K.M ADARSH KUMAR SHASHANK DEVAN K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.4181 of 2024
:2:
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2024
The petitioner, who stood as guarantor for a Housing Loan availed by her son for an amount of ₹25 lakhs from the 1st respondent - Bank of Baroda in the year 2014 and against whom the Bank has initiated 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 in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to permit the petitioner’s son to clear the overdue amounts in the Loan Account No.59420100000665 in a phased manner and direct the respondents to regularize the loan account in the interest of justice;
(ii) Issue any such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper considering the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. ”
W.P.(C)No.4181 of 2024
:3:
petitioner. Ext.P2 is the possession notice 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. Ext.P3 is the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Alappuzha in proceedings under Section 14 of the Act, 2002.
W.P.(C)No.4181 of 2024
:4:
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.
of the Constitution of India shall be exercised only in
W.P.(C)No.4181 of 2024
:5:
extraordinary circumstances.
7. 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.
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
ams
W.P.(C)No.4181 of 2024
:6:
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4181/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2NDRESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA KAUMUDHY DAILY, DATED 18.10.2023, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 13(4) OF THE SARFAESI ACT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN M.C. NO.25/2024 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ALAPPUZHA
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 01.03.2024 FOR RS.1,00,000/- ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging proceedings under the SARFAESI Act initiated by a financial institution is maintainable.
Whether the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution against proceedings under the Securitisation Act when efficacious alternate remedies exist.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and othersFollowed¶25
[(2010) 8 SCC 110] · Who else cites this
Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C.Followed¶28
[2018 (1) KLT 784]
Anilkumar v. State Bank of IndiaFollowed¶30
[2020 (2) KLT 756]
South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen Mathew PhilipFollowed¶31
[2023 (4) KLT 29]
Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and othersFollowed¶37
(W.P.(C) No.30803/2023)
Muthu Bindhu
Bank of BarODA
The Authorized Officer Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, NRI Specialized Branch, Kallelil Green Town
N. Nagaresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
