Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Union Bank Of India – Appellant
Versus
Alice Ulahannan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the property rights of a mentally disabled person. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding jurisdiction and the need for statutory remedies. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court observations on the jurisdiction of the high court in debt recovery matters. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. conclusion and outcome of the appeal. (Para 18) |
| 5. the court's final reasoning regarding the dismissal of the original petition. (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
This intra-court appeal is filed under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by respondents 2 and 3 in O.P. (DRT) No.180 of 2025 challenging the judgment dated 26.06.2025, whereby the original petition filed by the 1st respondent herein/petitioner was disposed of by the learned Single Judge with the following directions:
2. The 1st respondent-petitioner filed the original petition through her next friend, stating that the 1st respondent has been mentally disabled since birth. According to the 1st respondent, her father died intestate. By Annexure A3 partition deed bearing No.2932 of 1988 of S.R.O. Puthencruz dated 19.08.1988, the immovable properties belonging to the father of the 1st respondent were partitioned betwe
The High Court cannot intervene under Article 226 when an alternative statutory remedy exists, particularly in debt recovery cases under SARFAESI Act.
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 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....
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.
High Courts should not interfere under Article 226 in matters involving the SARFAESI Act when alternative statutory remedies are available, emphasizing judicial restraint.
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 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....
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
