Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
P.B. Manaf, S/o. Late Basheer – Appellant
Versus
Union Bank Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellants, who are respondents 1 to 4 in W.P.(C) No.14656 of 2025, have filed this writ appeal invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958 challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.04.2025 in that writ petition, which was one filed by the 1st respondent herein-petitioner, invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 order dated 08.01.2025 of the Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl.M.P.No.102 of 2025 in Crl.R.P.No.3 of 2025. That writ petition was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 10.04.2025. Paragraphs 5, 6 and also the last paragraph of the judgment read thus;
“5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The jurisdiction exercised by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act has been considered in various decisions of the Supreme Court – Balkrishna Rama Tarle v. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. [(2023) 1 SCC 662] and R.D. Jain and Co. v. Capital Fi
A writ appeal is not maintainable against a decision exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, as it does not constitute original jurisdiction under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court....
A writ petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained if effective statutory remedies exist, requiring proper reasoning in interim orders issued by the court.
In matters involving the SARFAESI Act, the High Court should not intervene through writ petitions where appropriate statutory remedies exist, and full material disclosure is essential to maintaining ....
High Courts should not interfere under Article 226 in matters involving the SARFAESI Act when alternative statutory remedies are available, emphasizing judicial restraint.
Writ jurisdiction must align with statutory procedures; courts should exercise restraint in commercial matters, particularly regarding SARFAESI Act enforcement.
The High Court maintains that statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act must be pursued over writ jurisdiction when alternative forums are available.
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.
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
