IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
NITIN JAMDAR, C.J., S. MANU, J.
SOUTH INDIAN BANK – Appellant
Versus
ABDULLA KULUKKAMPARA S/O MUHAMMAD ALI – Respondent
WA No. 1838 of 2024
Decided On : 19-11-2024
(A) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - The High Court should not interfere with proceedings under the SARFAESI Act when an effective remedy is available under the statute. (Paras 5, 15)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The High Court must exercise caution in granting reliefs that bypass statutory mechanisms for recovery of dues. (Paras 8, 14)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant Bank classified the respondent's loan accounts as Non-Performing Assets due to default in payments, leading to proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The learned Single Judge directed the petitioner to pay an upfront amount and subsequent installments.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the learned Single Judge's order was improper as it interfered with the statutory scheme of the SARFAESI Act.
Issues: Whether the High Court should entertain writ petitions challenging proceedings under the SARFAESI Act when alternative remedies are available.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the High Court should refrain from interfering with SARFAESI proceedings, emphasizing the importance of statutory remedies.
Result: Writ Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
S. MANU, J.
1. The Appellant Bank is aggrieved by the judgment dated 4 November 2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 38607/2024.
2. W.P. (C) No. 38607 of 2024 was filed seeking the following prayers:
(II) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent banks not to proceed further under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 or under any other law against the petitioner.
(III) To dispense with the translation of documents from vernacular language to English on the undertaking that the same shall be produced as and when directed by the Hon'ble Court.”
3. The Respondent had availed a Cash Credit Open Loan (CCOL) for an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- and a term loan under the Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS) for an amount of Rs. 7,80,000/- from the Appellant Bank, by creating an equitable mortgage of 20.25 Ares (50.04 Cents) of land along with his residential building in Survey No. 180/20 A 182 of Mannarkad Village. Since there was default in paying the amounts, the Bank classified the accounts as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) and proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were also initiated. The learned counsel for the Bank submitted that the total outstanding amount is Rs. 51,83,719.18 as on 02.11.2024.
4. The learned Single Judge disposed the writ petition directing the petitioner to pay the upfront amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- on or before 20.11.2024 and the remaining outstanding amount along with future interest, if any, in 12 equal monthly installments. The first installment was directed to be paid on or before 20.12.2024 and the remaining 11 installments on or before 20th day of each succeeding month. Further, the petitioner was directed that in case of failure to make payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- or any subsequent installments as directed above, the bank shall be free to proceed further against the petitioner for realizing the outstanding amount. The Bank is deeply aggrieved by the impugned judgment and it contends that the same is opposed to the principles laid down and reaffirmed in a catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
5. In writ petitions under Article 226 pertaining to the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act if reliefs are granted, it would frustrate the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and facilitate bypassing of the adjudicatory mechanism under the Act. Scope of intervention in such cases has been analyzed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in numerous judgments and in unmistakable terms the Apex Court has declared that it is improper for the High Courts to entertain such challenges.
6. We advert to the statement of objects and reasons of the SARFAESI Act also in this context and extract it hereunder:
The High Court should not interfere with SARFAESI Act proceedings when effective statutory remedies are available, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legislative intent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Courts should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an efficacious alternative remedy unde....
Writ petitions under Article 226 not maintainable against private scheduled banks' SARFAESI actions; borrowers must exhaust Section 17 remedy before Debts Recovery Tribunal; High Courts cannot direct....
A writ petition cannot be entertained against SARFAESI Act proceedings when an adequate statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is available.
The main legal point established in this judgment is that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters involving recovery of dues under....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the relevant provisions under the SARFAESI Act, the availability of expeditious and effective remedies, and the non-maintainab....
The High Court must not entertain writ petitions regarding SARFAESI actions without the petitioner first pursuing statutory remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal as mandated under the SARFAESI ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.