IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K.Narendran, Muralee Krishna S.
Kerala Bank (Kerala State Co-Operative Bank) – Appellant
Versus
Jishith Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellants, who are the respondents in W.P.(C)No.21496 of 2025, are before this Court in this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 31.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, which was one filed by the respondent herein-petitioner, who availed a business loan for Rs.16,00,000/- from Kakkodi Branch of the Kerala State Co-operative Bank (erstwhile Kozhikode District Co-operative Bank) on 13.03.2019, by depositing title deed of the property having an extent of 20.5 cents in Chelannur Village. In the said writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st appellant Kerala State Co- operative Bank (Kerala Bank) to permit him to clear the entire liability by easy monthly installments, after deducting all interest, penal interest and other penal charges calculated in the loan account; an order directing the 1st appellant Kerala Bank and the 2nd appellant Authorised Officer to release physical possession of the mortgaged property to the petitioner immediately; and stay of
Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan
South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India
Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon
State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C.
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....
The High Court emphasized the necessity for statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act rather than invoking Article 226, affirming that approaches must follow prescribed legal frameworks in financial ....
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 maintains that statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act must be pursued over writ jurisdiction when alternative forums are available.
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.
Courts should respect statutory routes for recovery before entertaining writ petitions in commercial matters, emphasizing the efficacy of specialized tribunals under SARFAESI.
Statutory deposit under SARFAESI Act is mandatory for appeals; High Court should not intervene if effective remedies exist.
Legal heirs of a deceased guarantor cannot contest proceedings under SARFAESI Act after notice served during the guarantor's lifetime, as they must seek remedy via Debts Recovery Tribunal.
High Courts should not interfere under Article 226 in matters involving the SARFAESI Act when alternative statutory remedies are available, emphasizing judicial restraint.
When alternative statutory remedies are available, a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable, particularly in financial recovery matters under the SARFAESI Act, unless exceptional circums....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.