Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
Rosamma Tony, W/o. Tony – Appellant
Versus
South Indian Bank Ltd., Represented By Its Authorized Officer And Chief Manager – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ appeal involves challenge to earlier judgment. (Para 2) |
| 2. court emphasizes disclosure of material facts. (Para 4 , 8 , 10) |
| 3. petitioner claims boundary dispute affecting civil rights. (Para 5 , 6 , 12) |
| 4. high court's power limited to supervisory jurisdiction. (Para 20 , 22 , 25) |
| 5. appeal dismissed; no interference without substantial basis. (Para 21 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellant-petitioner has filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 19.06.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.20781 of 2025, which was one filed invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent South Indian Bank Ltd., represented by its Authorised Officer and Chief Manager, not to take any steps for possession or boundary demarcation with respect to plaint A schedule property in O.S.No.180 of 2023 on the file of the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda till the said suit is disposed of by that court. In the writ petition, on behalf of the re
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 ....
A writ petition cannot be entertained against SARFAESI Act proceedings when an adequate statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is available.
The requirement for mandatory pre-deposit under the SARFAESI Act cannot be waived; failure to comply invalidates any appeals against recovery actions.
Writ petitions under Article 226 not maintainable against private scheduled banks' SARFAESI actions; borrowers must exhaust Section 17 remedy before Debts Recovery Tribunal; High Courts cannot direct....
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 ....
Writ petitions against private banks are not maintainable when statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act exist, illustrating the separation of judicial authority from statutory mechanisms.
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 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 main legal point established in this judgment is that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters involving recovery of dues under....
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
