The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition filed by a home loan defaulter seeking a stay on SARFAESI proceedings and an order to allow payment of arrears in 15 installments, holding the petition unsustainable for being maintainable.
The writ petition was dismissed as it is not maintainable, holding no writ would lie against SARFAESI 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
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 13TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 77 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
HASHIM ALI U.A AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KHADER, RESIDING AT ABC HOUSE, ORIMUKKU JUNCTION, KAITHAKKAD P.O., KASARAGOD PIN – 671313.
BY ADVS. T.MADHU RENJISH S. MENON VRINDA T.S. AISWARYA JAYAPAL C.R.SARADAMANI
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AXIS BANK LTD., RETAIL ASSET CENTRE, SECOND FLOOR, GLOBAL TOWER, V ZONE MALL, PARAYANCHERY, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673016.
2 THE MANAGER AXIS BANK LTD., KOZHIKODE BRANCH, RETAIL ASSET CENTRE, SECOND FLOOR, GLOBAL TOWER, V ZONE MALL, PARAYANCHERY, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673016.
BY ADV.SRI.PRADEESH CHACKO
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.77 of 2024
:2:
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2024
The petitioner, who has availed a Home Loan from the Axis Bank Limited, has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to pay the defaulted arrears of the Housing Loan in 15 equated monthly instalments.
remits an amount of ₹1 lakh towards the overdue amount on or before 31.01.2024.
submitted that the petitioner has not deposited the said amount as directed by this Court.
W.P.(C) No.77 of 2024
:3:
and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
W.P.(C) No.77 of 2024
:4:
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.
(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.
9. 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.
W.P.(C) No.77 of 2024
:5:
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.77 of 2024
:6:
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 77/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1
THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 16/6/2023 IN CMP NO.2459/2023 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT; KASARAGOD
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition can be maintainable against proceedings initiated by a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against SARFAESI proceedings given the statutory remedy.
Whether the present writ petition challenging the Securitisation Act proceedings is maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and othersExplained¶28
(2010) 8 SCC 110 · Who else cites this
Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C.Explained¶29
[2018 (1) KLT 784]
Anilkumar v. State Bank of IndiaExplained¶35
[2020 (2) KLT 756]
South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen Mathew PhilipExplained¶37
[2023 (4) KLT 29]
Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and othersRelied on¶39
W.P.(C) No.30803/2023
2 provisions across 2 enactments
HASHIM ALI U.A
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AXIS BANK LTD.
THE MANAGER AXIS BANK LTD.
N. NAGARESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
