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 processes.

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 1^st 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 1^st appellant Kerala Bank and the 2^nd appellant Authorised Officer to release physical possession of the mortgaged property to the petitioner immediately; and stay of the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

2. On 19.06.2025, when W.P.(C)No.21496 of 2025 came up for admission, the learned Single Judge ordered notice before admission. The learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Bank took notice for the respondents and sought time to file a statement. The interim order passed by the learned Single Judge on 19.06.2025, while posting the writ petition to 21.07.2025, reads thus;

“To consider the prayers sought for in the writ petition seeking installment facility and to defer further coercive steps against the petitioner, as an interim measure, there will be a direction to the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) on or before 18.07.2025. It is made clear that if the above payment is not made, the respondent will be at liberty to proceed further, in accordance with law.”

3. On 31.07.2025, when W.P.(C)No.21496 of 2025 came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined the reliefs sought for in the writ petition to an opportunity to repay the overdue amount in installments and to obtain regularisation of the loan account. The learned Single Judge, by the judgment dated 31.07.2025 disposed of the writ petition with the directions contained in paragraph 4 of that judgment. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the judgment dated 31.07.2025 read thus;

“3. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent Bank that the petitioner committed default in repayment of the loan, and the total overdue amount as on date is Rs.13,06,696/- (Rupees thirteen lakh six thousand six hundred and ninety six only), after giving credit to the amounts paid pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 19.06.2025. It was further submitted that though proceedings for recovery have been initiated, as a matter of indulgence, the respondent Bank is willing to accept repayment of the overdue amount in limited instalments and regularise the loan account. This is recorded.

4. Given the above, the petitioner can be granted an opportunity to repay the total overdue amount on the following conditions, and if they are met, to have the loan account regularised.

(i) On the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) on or before 01.09.2025, the respondent Bank shall return the possession of the secured ass