Writ petition challenging the competence of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to stay proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Following a Division Bench decision of this Court holding that such forums lack jurisdiction, the impugned order was quashed.
Impugned order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission quashed.
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 V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 9890 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
IDBI BANK LTD. KALPETTA BRANCH, KALPETTA BUSINESS CENTRE, GROUND FLOOR, KALPETTA BYE-PASS JUNCTION, WAYANAD REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER., PIN - 673121 BY ADVS. C.AJITH KUMAR C.K.JAYAKUMAR RAJEEVU L.G.
RESPONDENT/S:
2 ABDUL KALAM S/O.KUNHU MUHAMMED, KONNADAN HOUSE, KUNNAMBATTA POST VYTHIRI WAYANAD, PIN - 673123 BY ADV Celine Joseph
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. P.S. APPU, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.9890 of 2023
-2-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2024
The short question arises for consideration
in this writ petition is regarding the competence/jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to pass orders in matters where Banks have initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the legal position is covered by a series of decisions, including the Division Bench decision of this Court in Reghu B.
and Another v. State Bank of Travancore, Tvm and Another [2015 (4) KHC 270]. In unequivocal terms, it has been held that the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to stay proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.
respondent submitted that the dispute has been
W.P.(C) No.9890 of 2023
resolved and the amount paid.
Even if so, the legal position being as
discussed above, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and I do so.
The writ petition is disposed as above.
V.G.ARUN JUDGE
Scl/
W.P.(C) No.9890 of 2023
-4-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9890/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
| Exhibit-P1 |
TRUE COPY 18/11/2021 2ND RESPON |
OF THE ISSUED DENT |
DE BY |
MAND PETI |
NOTIC TIONER |
E DATED TO THE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exhibit-P2 | TRUE COP | Y OF | T | HE | ORDER | DATED |
| 21/11/2022 KALPETTA, |
PASSE | D | BY | CJM | COURT, | |
| Exhibit-P3 | TRUE COPY FILED BY T 1ST RESPON |
OF CO HE 2ND DENT |
MPL RES |
AINT PONDE |
C.C NT BEF |
49/2023 ORE THE |
| Exhibit-P4 | TRUE COPY EXT.P3 BY THE 1ST RE |
OF I.A THE 2N SPONDENT |
NO. D |
180/ RESP |
2023 F ONDENT |
ILED IN BEFORE |
| Exhibit-P5 | TRUE COP 13/03/2023 RESPONDENT |
Y OF PASSED |
T IN |
HE EXT. |
ORDER P4 BY |
DATED THE 1ST |
| Exhibit-P6 | TRUE COP | Y OF | T | HE | ORDER | DATED |
| 14/03/2023 RESPONDENT |
PASS | ED | BY | THE | 1ST |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has jurisdiction to pass orders staying proceedings initiated by banks under the SARFAESI Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Reghu B. and Another v. State Bank of Travancore, Tvm and AnotherRelied on¶18
[2015 (4) KHC 270]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
IDBI Bank Ltd., Kalpetta Branch
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kalpetta
Abdul Kalam S/o. Kunhu Muhammed
V.G.Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
