Back
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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the single judge's judgment. (Para 1) |
| 2. court's interim order and conditions for repayment. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. bank's arguments against the return of possession. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. legal remedies under the sarfaesi act. (Para 10 , 13) |
| 5. mandatory legal recourse rather than writ jurisdiction. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. dismissal of the writ petition as not maintainable. (Para 17) |
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
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....
Writ petitions against private banks are not maintainable when statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act exist, illustrating the separation of judicial authority from statutory mechanisms.
Writ petitions under Article 226 not maintainable against private scheduled banks' SARFAESI actions; borrowers must exhaust Section 17 remedy before Debts Recovery Tribunal; High Courts cannot direct....
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.
A writ petition cannot be entertained against SARFAESI Act proceedings when an adequate statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is 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.
Statutory deposit under SARFAESI Act is mandatory for appeals; High Court should not intervene if effective remedies exist.
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not entertainable against SARFAESI proceedings due to efficacious DRT remedy under Section 17.
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
