Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Hyder C.A, S/o. Late Abdul Khader – Appellant
Versus
Authorised Officer, Indian Bank – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.46617 of 2024 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958 , challenging the judgment dated 28.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.
2. According to the appellants, who are husband and wife, they are facing unjust and unfortunate eviction from their residential property due to arbitrary actions initiated by the respondent bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ’SARFAESI Act’). It is pleaded in the writ petition that the 1st appellant, as a partner of the 4th respondent Partnership business, namely, M/s. Nooh Exports Private Ltd. and the 2nd appellant, as guarantor, mortgaged their joint residential property in Sy. No. 899/19 having an extent of 4.25 Ares situated in Velloorkunnam Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk, Ernakulam District, along with a residential building with Door No.8/152 (Old No.5/89A) having 246.36 Sq.meters, in the year 2013, as a part of helping the 4th respondent firm to raise funds for its business operations. On 01.02.2013, an amount of Rs.40 lakh
The court upheld the principle that borrowers are bound by the contractual terms of a settlement agreement, emphasizing that the bank's retention of documents was justified as per terms accepted by b....
A bank cannot exercise a general lien to retain title deeds for debts where the mortgagor is not a borrower and has cleared the outstanding loan.
The right to redeem mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act is extinguished once the auction notice is published, indicating no entitlement to challenge the sale thereafter.
The High Court will not entertain writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings unless exceptional circumstances justify intervention, and parties must exhaust statutory remedies available for debt rec....
A bank cannot exercise a general lien over the documents of a property mortgaged as security for a loan for recovery of amounts other than the loan for which the lien was created.
Banks are not mandated to disclose benchmarks or consider OTS proposals, and courts cannot compel alteration of existing financial agreements under Article 226.
The main legal point established is that a bank's right to exercise a general lien is limited to specific circumstances, and the mortgagor has the right to redeem the mortgage under the Transfer of P....
Agreement by mistake of fact - As the parties were under a mutual mistake with respect to their respective rights, the agreement is liable to be set aside as having been proceeded upon a common mista....
A writ petition is maintainable against a scheduled bank under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the bank is performing public functions and is governed by the provisions of the Banking Re....
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
