Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
Union Bank of India, Peroorkkada Branch – Appellant
Versus
Baby John S/o Jain – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to interim order under sarfaesi. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dispute over interim relief in writ appeal. (Para 4) |
| 3. standards for appeal against orders discussed. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. details of previous proceedings and implications. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. writ jurisdiction and payment extensions discussed. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. caution on high court's intervention in commercial matters. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. decision to set aside interim order made. (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
1. The respondents in W.P.(C)No.24969 of 2025 have filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the order dated 08.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, which is one filed by the respondent herein-petitioner, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P16 notice dated 21.06.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram in M.C.No.755 of 2023, in a proceedings initiated by the 1st appellant Bank, invoking the provisions under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest A
Writ jurisdiction must align with statutory procedures; courts should exercise restraint in commercial matters, particularly regarding SARFAESI Act enforcement.
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 High Court emphasized the necessity for statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act rather than invoking Article 226, affirming that approaches must follow prescribed legal frameworks in financial ....
The requirement for mandatory pre-deposit under the SARFAESI Act cannot be waived; failure to comply invalidates any appeals against recovery actions.
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 ruled that parties must reveal all material facts in writ petitions and that statutory remedies available under the SARFAESI Act must be pursued before invoking writ jurisdiction.
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....
Financial institutions must follow statutory procedures when dealing with MSME classification and recovery; non-compliance can render actions invalid, emphasizing the need for judicial adherence to e....
High Courts should not interfere under Article 226 in matters involving the SARFAESI Act when alternative statutory remedies are available, emphasizing judicial restraint.
A litigant must present all claims arising from the same facts in one proceeding. Repeated litigation is impermissible following judicial determinations.
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
