IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
Authorised Officer, HDFC Bank Limited – Appellant
Versus
Narayanan Potty V., S/o. Vasudevan Potty – Respondent
WA No. 2175 of 2025
Decided on : 11-09-2025
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The respondents in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 have filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the order dated 27.08.2025 of the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in that writ petition.
2. W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 was filed by the respondents herein, who had availed a loan from HDFC Bank Limited, the 2nd appellant herein, for purchasing a vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL- 01/CT-9091. When the respondents defaulted repayment, the authorised officer of the Bank, the 1st appellant herein, issued Ext.P1 notice dated 27.12.2024, invoking the provisions under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), demanding a payment of Rs.13,74,452.13 together with future interest at the contractual rate and penal interest, with effect from 25.12.2024. In Ext.P1 notice it is stated that on account of default in repayment of the secured debt, the account has been classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 03.09.2024. On receipt of Ext.P1 notice, the respondents herein have submitted Ext.P2 objection dated 06.01.2025, as evident from Ext.P3 postal acknowledgement card. The document marked as Ext.P4 is a copy of notice of lien dated 10.02.2025 issued by the 1st appellant Bank in respect of an account maintained by the 2nd respondent herein. On 18.03.2025 the respondents herein filed W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants herein to permit them to clear the overdue in the loan account, by way of reasonable monthly installments; a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd appellant herein to regularise the loan account and allow them to continue repayment as per the terms of the loan agreement; a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd appellant herein to keep in abeyance all further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd appellant herein to restructure the loan, by enabling them to pay the overdue amount.
3. W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 was disposed of by the judgment dated 01.04.2025 with a direction to the Bank to accept repayment of the entire overdue amount of Rs.2,56,513/- along with any accrued interest, costs and charges from the respondents herein and regularise the loan account in the manner stated in paragraph 5 of that judgment. In the judgment it was made clear that in the event of default of any one installment, the Bank shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with law.
4. On 07.08.2025, the respondents herein filed W.P.(C) No.29526 of 2025 before this Court, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants herein to release vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/CT-9091 seized by the Bank; a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants herein to permit them to repay the pending dues and consider their case in a sympathetic manner; a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants herein not to initiate any steps for distress sale or cause damage to the repossessed vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/CT-9091; and a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants herein to restructure the loan, by enabling them to pay the overdue amount.
5. In paragraph 4 of the statement of facts in W.P.(C)No. 29526 of 2025, the respondents herein have stated that even though they are regular in repaying the installment amount as per the judgment dated 01.04.2025 in W.P.(C)No.12280 of 2025 and taking earnest efforts to see that payments are made in time, there happened to be some shortfall in the regular EMIs.
6. By the judgment dated 08.08.2025, the learned Single Judge disposed of W.P.(C)No.29526 of 2025 by directing the respondents herein either to seek extension of time to comply with the directions in the judgment dated 01.04.2025 in W.P.(C)No. 12280 of 2025 or to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
7. After the disposal of W.P.(C)No.29526 of 2025, the respondents herein filed I.A.
South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip
State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India
The court affirmed that once vehicle repossession occurs under SARFAESI, the aggrieved party must challenge such repossession through the appropriate statutory tribunal rather than via subsequent wri....
The court emphasized the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking constitutional provisions, reaffirming that interim orders affecting financial institutions must stem from substant....
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....
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....
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 ....
A writ petition cannot be entertained against SARFAESI Act proceedings when an adequate statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is available.
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.
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.
The requirement for mandatory pre-deposit under the SARFAESI Act cannot be waived; failure to comply invalidates any appeals against recovery actions.
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.