Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K. Narendran, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
C.D.Antos, S/o C.A.Devassy – Appellant
Versus
Glenny.C.J., S/o. Chemmannur Joseph – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the background and context of the loan defaults and auction. (Para 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the necessity of a statutory deposit for appeals. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on the proper exercise of jurisdiction and statutory requirements. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. clarification on the mandatory pre-deposit and the high court's limited intervention. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 19) |
| 5. conclusion of the court regarding the dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
This intra-court appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C)No.18071 of 2025, challenging the judgment dated 17.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein was disposed of by directing the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal to pass orders on the stay petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 within three weeks from the date of that judgment, if the application preferred by them is otherwise in order. It was further directed in that judgment that till orders are passed as directed, further coercive steps against respondents 1 and 2 shall be deferred.
“I) To issue a writ in the natur
Statutory deposit under SARFAESI Act is mandatory for appeals; High Court should not intervene if effective remedies exist.
When alternative statutory remedies are available, a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable, particularly in financial recovery matters under the SARFAESI Act, unless exceptional circums....
A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable when an effective statutory remedy exists under the Securitisation Act, especially in recovery related matters.
The High Court cannot intervene under Article 226 when an alternative statutory remedy exists, particularly in debt recovery cases under SARFAESI 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.
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 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 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....
High Courts should not interfere under Article 226 in matters involving the SARFAESI Act when alternative statutory remedies are available, emphasizing judicial restraint.
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
