Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
Thampi, S/o Gopalan - Appellant
Versus
The Authorized Officer, The Thiruvalla Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. - Respondent
WA No. 1581 of 2025
Decided on : 03-07-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - The appellant sought relief against recovery proceedings initiated by the bank, claiming the right to repay in installments. The learned Single Judge dismissed his petition, citing non-compliance with previous orders as grounds. (Paras 1 - 4 , 12)
(B) Res Judicata - The matter was previously adjudicated, and the appellant's claims were barred from re-litigation, underscoring the importance of judicial finality and discouraging piecemeal litigation. The petition cannot be entertained due to prior adjudication on similar subject matter. (Paras 4 - 5 )
Facts of the case:
The writ petition initiated concerning recovery proceedings by the bank under SARFAESI Act was dismissed by the learned Single Judge due to non-compliance with prior court orders. The appellant made partial repayment after the previous dismissal.
Findings of Court:
The dismissal was upheld as repeated litigations on the same cause of action are impermissible. The petitioner can seek extension or invoke alternative remedies under SARFAESI.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the appellant could re-litigate the claims related to the same loan agreement after previous dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi: Previous judgments affirm the prohibition against piecemeal litigation, compelling parties to present all claims in one proceeding only. The appellant's attempt to invoke writ jurisdiction without compliance with the previous order was deemed invalid.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's loan recovery issue and prior proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. discussion on res judicata and prior adjudication. (Para 4 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. arguments regarding the correctness of the dismissal. (Para 7) |
| 4. final dismissal of the appeal regarding writ jurisdiction. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellant has filed W.P.(C)No.21703 of 2025, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, namely, Thiruvalla Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. and its officials, not to initiate any further recovery proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), including sale of the secured assets having an extent of 3.64 and 3.71 Ares in Re.Sy.Nos.705/10-2 & 705/8 of Kuttapuzha Village, in connection with the loan availed by the appellant and to permit him to repay the due amount in installments. The petitioner has also sought for writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to furnish the statement of account showing the exact amount repayable by the petitioner towards the loan amount.
2. The document marked as Ext.P1 is a copy of the loan repayment book in respect of the loan transaction in question. Ext.P2 is a discharge card dated 29.04.2024 from the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, regarding the treatment undergone by the petitioner. The pleadings in the writ petition would show that the Bank initiated proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta, invoking the provisions under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, as M.C.No.73 of 2024, in which the said court passed an order appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured assets and accordingly in the month of May 2024, the Advocate Commissioner sent a notice to the petitioner under Section 14 (1) of the said Act.
3. The document marked as Ext.P3 is a copy of the judgment of this Court dated 19.08.2024 in W.P.(C)No.22761 of 2024 filed by the appellant-petitioner seeking interference with the proceedings initiated by the Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and permitting him to repay the overdue amount in installments. In that writ petition, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order dated 26.02.2024, whereby the petitioner was required to deposit Rs.1,00,000/-. Though the time limit for complying with that order was extended twice, the petitioner did not pay the said amount. Therefore W.P.(C) No.22761 of 2024 was dismissed by Ext.P3 judgment dated 19.08.2024. After the dismissal of the said writ petition, on 03.10.2024, the appellant remitted a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards the liability in the loan transaction in question, as evident from Ext.P4 Challan. Thereafter, he has chosen to file W.P.(C)No.21703 of 2025 before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
4. On 20.06.2025, when W.P.(C)No.21703 of 2025 came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge dismissed the same, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file an application for extension of time for complying with the directions contained in Ext.P3 judgment dated 19.08.2024 in W.P.(C)No.22761 of 2024, if so advised, or to invoke the remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of the judgment dated 20.06.2025 read thus;
“2. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this court by filing WP(C) No.22761 of 2024 in Ext.P3 judgment, wherein the petitioner had approached this Court seeking instalment facility to clear the overdue amount and to regularise the loan account.
3. The writ petition No.22761 of 2024 was disposed of on 19th August 2024 as follows;
“2.This court granted indulgence to the petitioner vide the interim order dated 26.02.2024, directed the petitioner to discharge Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner did not comply with said interim order and the time for complying the said interim order was extended till 08.08.20
A litigant must present all claims arising from the same facts in one proceeding. Repeated litigation is impermissible following judicial determinations.
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....
High Courts should not interfere under Article 226 in matters involving the SARFAESI Act when alternative statutory remedies are available, emphasizing judicial restraint.
A writ petition cannot be entertained against SARFAESI Act proceedings when an adequate statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is available.
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not entertainable against SARFAESI proceedings due to efficacious DRT remedy under Section 17.
The High Court's intervention in matters governed by the SARFAESI Act requires adherence to statutory procedures and primarily rests with the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Writ jurisdiction must align with statutory procedures; courts should exercise restraint in commercial matters, particularly regarding SARFAESI Act enforcement.
High Courts should not interfere under Article 226 in SARFAESI proceedings; statutory remedies must be availed.
The High Court emphasized the necessity for statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act rather than invoking Article 226, affirming that approaches must follow prescribed legal frameworks in financial ....
The High Court should not interfere with SARFAESI Act proceedings when effective statutory remedies are available, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legislative intent.
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
