Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.TH, JJ
Nazarudheen S/o Aliyarukunju – Appellant
Versus
Quilon Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to dismissal of writ petition (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding ots and sarfaesi proceedings (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. recurring nature of writ petitions filed against bank (Para 4 , 5 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. high court's jurisdiction under article 226 (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. ruling on eligibility for ots scheme (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.23397 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 07.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing that writ petition.
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation dated 17.06.2025 submitted by the petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate order directing the 1st respondent Bank to adjust the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- contemplated in Ext.P2 judgment towards OTS facility, if revived.
3. In the writ petition, on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, a statement dated 28.06.2025 was filed by the learned Standing Counsel, opposing the relief sought for in the writ petition and producing ther
The High Court will not entertain writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings unless exceptional circumstances justify intervention, and parties must exhaust statutory remedies available for debt rec....
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 ....
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.
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 affirmed that the adequate remedy under the SARFAESI Act must be pursued before seeking judicial intervention, emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory options.
Statutory remedies under SARFAESI Act must be exhausted before seeking writ relief, particularly regarding recovery proceedings, emphasizing compliance with all repayment conditions.
The court upheld the principle that a writ of mandamus cannot compel banks regarding One Time Settlement terms, insisting on adherence to statutory grievance mechanisms provided under the SARFAESI Ac....
Statutory deposit under SARFAESI Act is mandatory for appeals; High Court should not intervene if effective remedies exist.
The High Court maintains that statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act must be pursued over writ jurisdiction when alternative forums are available.
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
