IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that exceptional circumstances are required for a writ petition against the measures under the Securitisation Act, and the bank cannot proceed with the measures under the Securitisation Act in the light of the dismissal of the civil suit.

A riveting question has emerged in this writ petition. Whether the Secured Creditor is entitled to continue with the measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 once a civil suit filed by it for recovery is dismissed by the court?

2. The facts in the writ petition disclose that petitioner availed a car loan for an amount of Rs.9,00,000/-. The petitioner executed necessary documents towards security. As per Ext.P6, the terms and conditions of sanction of the loan was accepted by the petitioner. Thereafter, by Ext.P7 an agreement of hypothecation was also executed on 14.7.2010. The petitioner claims that she has paid the entire amount due under the loan account. But, Ext.P9 notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“Securitisation Act”, for short) was issued for an amount of Rs.1,73,138/-. The petitioner raised her objection and while so, the respondent-Bank again issued a fresh notice on 11.1.2008 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act. The petitioner's objection that she is not liable to pay any amount under the loan agreement was not accepted by the respondent-Bank.

3. On behalf of the respondent-Bank, a statement has been filed in the writ petition wherein it is stated that Ext.P14 reply was considered and Ext.P15 was issued by the Bank rejecting the contentions. It is also contended that as against the measures under the Securitisation Act, the petitioner has got a remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in terms of Section 17 of the Securitisation Act.

4. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Bank during the pendency of the writ petition had filed commercial suit No.418/2021 before the Commercial Court, Kottayam. However, by judgment and decree dated 29.11.2023, the suit was dismissed finding that there is no amount due to be recovered from the defendant therein, who is the petitioner herein.

5. In the light of the dismissal of the suit filed by the respondent Bank, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent Bank cannot proceed further with the recovery measures under the Securitisation Act and accordingly prayed that this Court may pass appropriate orders on the writ petition taking note of the subsequent events.

6. On the contrary, the learned Senior Counsel Sri. T. Sethumadavan appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that the measures under the Securitisation Act and filing of the civil suit being entirely different and whereas the secured creditor is entitled to take parallel proceedings for recovery of its dues, there cannot be any interdiction on the measures under the Securitisation Act. It is the specific case of the Bank that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against the measures taken by the Bank under the Securitisation Act. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that despite the dismissal of the suit, the bank is entitled to proceed with the measures now initiated.

7. I have heard Sri. Abdul Lathiff, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. T. Sethumadhavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank assisted by Smt. Deepa Narayanan.

8. In the light of the specific argument raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the Bank, this Court is called upon to decide the following issues:-

(1) Whether the writ petition is maintainable against the measures under the Securitisation Act?

(2) Whether the Securitisation measures now initiated can be proceeded, despite the dismissal of the suit by the Commercial Court, Kottayam?

9. The question, as to whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the measures taken under the Securitisation Act, is no longer res integra. It has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Autho