IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
K. Elias, S/o. Varghese – Appellant
Versus
Hero Fincorp Ltd, Rep. By Its Chairman – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. previous judgments concerning related parties. (Para 3) |
| 2. relief sought in writ petition. (Para 4) |
| 3. arguments of the appellant and respondents. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. legal standards regarding writ petitions against nbfcs. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. finality of the court's decision. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellant-petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.48356 of 2025, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs;
“i. To call for the records in connection with Exhibit P8 application, Exhibit P12 stay application and Exhibit P13 order and stay all further proceedings in Exhibit P13 order, granting reasonable time to the petitioner to challenge the same before the learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. ii. To direct the learned Advocate Commissioner to grant reasonable time to the petitioner to avail the appellate legal remedy under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 and not to proceed further in the matter of taking physical possession of the properties of the petitioner, as
Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir
Writ petitions against private financial institutions under the SARFAESI Act are not maintainable; statutory remedies must be pursued instead.
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....
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.
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 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 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 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....
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.
Financial institutions cannot initiate SARFAESI proceedings for loan amounts below Rs.20,00,000/- as per Central Government regulations.
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.