Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Porinchu Roy, S/o. Porinchu – Appellant
Versus
Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant seeks to quash sale notice due to loan issues. (Para 1) |
| 2. contentions on maintainability of writ raised. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. review petition filed after non-compliance with prior judgment. (Para 4) |
| 4. writ appeal dismissed as no grounds for review proven. (Para 5) |
| 5. court reviews intervention need on prior order. (Para 6) |
| 6. apex court guidelines on sarfaesi act compliance. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 7. legal authority parameters for writ petitions explained. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 8. limitations of review jurisdiction under cpc highlighted. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
The appellant, who availed a business loan for Rs.20,00,000/- in the year 2023 from the 1st respondent Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Ltd., which is a private non-banking financial institution, by mortgaging his property, filed W.P.(C)No.12478 of 2025, invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 sale notice dated 27.02.2025 issued by 1st respondent and Ext.P2 notice dated 12.03.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur in Crl.M.P.No.2272 of 20
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.
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 High Court ruled that parties must reveal all material facts in writ petitions and that statutory remedies available under the SARFAESI Act must be pursued before invoking writ jurisdiction.
A writ petition against a Non-Banking Financial Company is not maintainable as it does not perform a public function, referring to precedents set by the Supreme Court.
Writ petitions against private financial institutions under the SARFAESI Act are not maintainable; statutory remedies must be pursued instead.
In matters involving the SARFAESI Act, the High Court should not intervene through writ petitions where appropriate statutory remedies exist, and full material disclosure is essential to maintaining ....
A litigant must present all claims arising from the same facts in one proceeding. Repeated litigation is impermissible following judicial determinations.
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 ....
A writ petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained if effective statutory remedies exist, requiring proper reasoning in interim orders issued by the court.
The High Court maintains that statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act must be pursued over writ jurisdiction when alternative forums are available.
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
