Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Classic Agencies, Represented By The Partner Mani. V., S/o. Late Sreedharan – Appellant
Versus
Regional Office, Represented By Its Regional Manager – Respondent
-
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellants-petitioners filed W.P.(C)No.24490 of 2025 invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Indian Overseas Bank not to cancel the One Time Settlement (OTS) facility granted vide Ext.P2 sanction letter dated 26.12.2024 and to consider favourably the proposal made by the petitioners in Ext.P6 request dated 16.06.2025, for extending the timeline of the OTS facility sanctioned vide Ext.P2. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to keep in abeyance all coercive steps against the secured assets, till a decision is taken by Indian Overseas Bank on the proposal made in Ext.P6 request for extending the timeline of the OTS facility sanctioned vide Ext.P2.
2. Before the learned Single Judge, the learned Standing Counsel for Indian Overseas Bank filed a statement dated 17.07.2025, opposing the reliefs sought for. By the judgment dated 01.08.2025, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, taking note of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for Indian Overseas Bank that
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....
The High Court cannot mandate a bank to grant One Time Settlement benefits not compliant with established terms or after scheme expiration.
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 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....
High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue writs like mandamus is limited; parties must exhaust statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention in financial matters governed by the ....
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....
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 litigant must present all claims arising from the same facts in one proceeding. Repeated litigation is impermissible following judicial determinations.
The High Court maintains that statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act must be pursued over writ jurisdiction when alternative forums are available.
High Courts should not interfere under Article 226 in matters involving the SARFAESI Act when alternative statutory remedies are available, emphasizing judicial restraint.
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
