IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Domanica Benny – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Muralee Krishna, J.
This writ appeal is filed under Section 5 (i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958, by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.9263 of 2025, challenging the Judgment dated 04.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition. The 1st appellant is the wife of the 2nd appellant. They filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
“i. To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order calling for the records leading to Exhibit P3 Notice of Possession issued under Section 13 (4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction Assets of Financial and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and under Rule 8 (1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 dated 22.10.2024 and quash the same holding that the same is in complete contravention of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of security interest Act, 2002 in the light of Ground A and rules framed thereunder and the steps taken by the 7th and 8th respondents are illegal, unjustified, erroneous, unwarranted, null and void and arbitrary; in the interest of justice.
ii. To direct the 2nd respondent Reserve Ban
S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd.
Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C.
Commissioner of Income Tax and Others v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal
South Indian Bank Ltd. (M/s.) v. Naveen Mathew Philip
Writ petitions challenging actions under the SARFAESI Act are not maintainable unless exceptional circumstances exist, and parties must exhaust statutory remedies available under the Act.
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.
Parties must exhaust statutory remedies before invoking High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 in SARFAESI Act cases.
Writ petitions challenging SARFAESI actions are maintainable only when alternative remedies are exhausted, emphasizing the importance of valid security interests.
Statutory remedies under SARFAESI Act must be exhausted before seeking writ relief, particularly regarding recovery proceedings, emphasizing compliance with all repayment conditions.
Statutory deposit under SARFAESI Act is mandatory for appeals; High Court should not intervene if effective remedies exist.
A writ petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained if effective statutory remedies exist, requiring proper reasoning in interim orders issued by the court.
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 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 ....
High Courts should not interfere under Article 226 in matters involving the SARFAESI Act when alternative statutory remedies are available, emphasizing judicial restraint.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.