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 Act.

-

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 2^nd 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 Bank has already taken a decision on the proposal made by the petitioners in Ext.P6 request. In the said judgment, the learned Single Judge directed the respondents to communicate the decision taken on Ext.P6 request within a week. To enable the petitioners to work out their remedies, it was ordered that no steps shall be taken by the Bank, against the petitioners, for a period of two weeks.

-

3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.24490 of 2025, the appellants-petitioners are before this Court in this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

4. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for Indian Overseas Bank for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners would contend that since the appellants have made a total payment of Rs.1.19 Crores to the 2^nd respondent Bank pursuant to the OTS facility sanctioned vide Ext.P2 sanction letter dated 26.12.2024, the learned Single Judge ought to have granted the reliefs sought for in W.P.(C)No.24490 of 2025. After the judgment of the learned Single Judge the appellants have been issued with Annexure A reply dated 14.08.2025, whereby their request in Ext.P6 for extending the timeline in the OTS facility granted vide Ext.P2 stands rejected.

-

6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for Indian Overseas Bank for the respondents would point out the specific contentions raised in the statement dated 17.07.2025 filed in W.P.(C)No.24490 of 2025 on the maintainability of the reliefs sought for in that writ petition.

7. In South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip, (2023) 17 SCC 311 , in the context of the challenge made against the notices issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act , the Apex Court reiterated the settled position of law on the interference of the High Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India in commercial matters, where an effective and efficacious alternative forum has been constituted through a statute. In the said decision, the Apex Court took judicial notice of the fact that certain High Courts continue to interfere in such matters, leading to a regular supply of cases before the Apex Court. The Apex Court reiterated that a writ of certiorari is to be issued over a decision when the court finds that the process does not conform to the law or the statute. In other words, courts are not expected to substitute themselves with the decision-making authority while finding fault with the process along with the reasons assigned. Such a writ is not expected to be issued to remedy all violations. When a Tribunal is constituted, it is expected to go into the issues of fact and law, incl