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 :
Muralee Krishna, J.
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.
2. The appellant availed a vehicle loan of Rs.26,50,000/- from the 1st respondent Bank, by offering the same vehicle as collateral security. The total amount that had to be repaid by the appellant was Rs.32,02,260/- by way of 48 monthly instalments. However, the repayment of the loan was defaulted after July 2024. As per Ext.P3 Bank Statement dated 25.10.2024, the appellant had paid a tot
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.
Writ petitions against private banks are not maintainable when statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act exist, illustrating the separation of judicial authority from statutory mechanisms.
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....
An aggrieved party must exhaust statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act before invoking the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226.
The High Court maintains a self-imposed restraint under Article 226 when alternative statutory remedies exist, especially in matters concerning the SARFAESI Act.
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not entertainable against SARFAESI proceedings due to efficacious DRT remedy under Section 17.
The High Court will not entertain writ petitions against SARFAESI Act proceedings unless exceptional circumstances exist and remedies under the Act have been exhausted.
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
