Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Sudhir.A.C, S/o Chandrasekharan Nambudiri Ayinippillil Mana – Appellant
Versus
South Indian Bank – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellants seek overdraft renewal. (Para 1) |
| 2. single judge denied writ relief. (Para 2) |
| 3. writ appeal filed after judgment. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 5. prior loan management established. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. legal standards for judicial review discussed. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
The appellants are the partners of a firm, by name 'AYRO Industries,' which is carrying on the business of making interlock bricks. The firm along with its partners availed various credit facilities from the 1st respondent South Indian Bank, including a term loan and overdraft facility. The appellants-petitioners have approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.25118 of 2025, invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to renew the business overdraft loan account of the petitioners, without reducing the limit, in the interest of justice; and to stay all further recovery proceedings pursuant to Exts.P2 to P4 notices issued by the 3rd respondent Authorised Officer under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforceme
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 ....
A litigant must present all claims arising from the same facts in one proceeding. Repeated litigation is impermissible following judicial determinations.
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 review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 is limited and requires evident errors for modification; mere non-compliance with judicial orders does not suffice to invoke review.
High Courts should not interfere under Article 226 in matters involving the SARFAESI Act when alternative statutory remedies are available, emphasizing judicial restraint.
The High Court cannot intervene in SARFAESI Act proceedings initiated by a private non-banking financial company if alternatives are specified, especially when compliance with court orders is lacking....
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....
As a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and....
The High Court should not interfere with SARFAESI Act proceedings when effective statutory remedies are available, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legislative intent.
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 ....
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
