Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Union Bank of India, Represented by its Regional Manager, Kottayam – Appellant
Versus
Suwique Traders – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ appeal challenging coercive actions under sarfaesi. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of tribunal's dismissal impacting the appeal. (Para 4 , 5 , 15) |
| 3. examining jurisdiction and appropriateness of interim relief. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. mandatory nature of pre-deposit for appeal under sarfaesi. (Para 19 , 21) |
| 5. final verdict confirming the appeal as allowed. (Para 20 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The respondents in O.P.(DRT)No.173 of 2025 are before this Court in this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.06.2025 in that original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to the extent the appellants, namely, the Union Bank of India and its Authorised Officer, are directed to keep in abeyance further coercive steps against the respondents-petitioners under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), till appropriate orders are passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in Ext.P3 application for stay and Ext.P4 application for waiver of pre-depo
The court determined that a learned Single Judge's discretion to order the abeyance of coercive actions must conform to statutory provisions under the SARFAESI Act, reinforcing limits on appellate ju....
A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable when an effective statutory remedy exists under the Securitisation Act, especially in recovery related matters.
Statutory deposit under SARFAESI Act is mandatory for appeals; High Court should not intervene if effective remedies exist.
Point of law: High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, relating to matters coming under the purview of SARFAESI Act, 2002, where a st....
The High Court cannot intervene under Article 226 when an alternative statutory remedy exists, particularly in debt recovery cases under 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....
The court emphasized the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking constitutional provisions, reaffirming that interim orders affecting financial institutions must stem from substant....
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 ....
Pre-deposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is a mandatory requirement for maintaining an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, and it cannot be completely waived even in the face of financial h....
A writ petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained if effective statutory remedies exist, requiring proper reasoning in interim orders issued by the court.
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
