Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K. Narendran, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
Biju P.V. S/o Vijayan P.V. – Appellant
Versus
Induslnd Bank Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal principles regarding writ jurisdiction. (Para 12) |
| 2. conclusion on maintainability of writ. (Para 14) |
| 3. final ruling on the appeal. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This intra-court appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7213 of 2025, challenging the judgment dated 04.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner against the measures taken by the respondents under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’) was closed holding that the appellant-petitioner has to take recourse against the order under challenge under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
3. The 2nd respondent Authorised Officer of the Bank filed a counter affidavit dated 19.03.2025 in the writ petition producing therewith Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) documents. The 2nd respondent has further filed an additional affidavit dated 08.04.2025 in the writ petition. Along with I.A.No.1 of 2025, the respondents produced Exts.R2C to R2E documents in the writ petition.
“4. In view of the above, the challenge
Writ petitions challenging actions under SARFAESI Act are not maintainable if alternative statutory remedies are available.
High Courts should not interfere under Article 226 in matters involving the SARFAESI Act when alternative statutory remedies are available, emphasizing judicial restraint.
Statutory deposit under SARFAESI Act is mandatory for appeals; High Court should not intervene if effective remedies exist.
The High Court cannot intervene in SARFAESI Act proceedings initiated by a private non-banking financial company if alternatives are specified, especially when compliance with court orders is lacking....
The High Court maintains a self-imposed restraint under Article 226 when alternative statutory remedies exist, especially in matters concerning the SARFAESI Act.
The court determined that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked in loan recovery matters when statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act are available, reaffirming the priority of legislative proces....
A writ petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained if effective statutory remedies exist, requiring proper reasoning in interim orders issued by the court.
Point of Law : Section 17 of SARFAESI Act reads application against measures to recover secured debts.
The High Court affirmed that the adequate remedy under the SARFAESI Act must be pursued before seeking judicial intervention, emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory options.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
