Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.TH, JJ
Jenin Daniel, S/o. Daniel Varghese – Appellant
Versus
Authorized Officer, Canara Bank – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against dismissal of writ petition (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. previous proceedings not favorable to appellant (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. appellant seeks status quo order (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. high court's limited jurisdiction under sarfaesi (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28510 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing that writ petition.
“i) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext. P1.
3. By the judgment dated 12.08.2025 the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of that judgment read thus:
3. The petitioner had preferred W.A. No. 1893/2024, in which there was a direction to pay 25% of the liability by way of an interim order dated 11.02.2025, but noting that the same was also not complied with, the Writ Appeal was dismissed.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred the present writ appeal wherein it is contended that the proceedings initiated by the Bank pursuant to Ext.P1 notice dated 08.07.2025 issued by the Advocate Comm
High Courts should not interfere under Article 226 in matters involving the SARFAESI Act when alternative statutory remedies are available, emphasizing judicial restraint.
Writ petitions challenging actions under SARFAESI Act are not maintainable if alternative statutory remedies are available.
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.
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....
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.
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 should not interfere with SARFAESI Act proceedings when effective statutory remedies are available, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legislative intent.
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
