Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. SOUMEN SEN, CJ, MR. SYAM KUMAR V.M., J
UNION BANK OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
M/S. GRIDS ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case initiation and representations. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. analysis of the settlement and implications on proceedings. (Para 5 , 13 , 18 , 22) |
| 3. challenging jurisdiction and legal basis for writ petitions. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. principles regarding alternative remedies and writ jurisdiction. (Para 14 , 15 , 51 , 56) |
| 5. final decision and dismissal of the writ appeal. (Para 72 , 74 , 75) |
JUDGMENT
Soumen Sen, C.J .
The order of reference is arising out of a writ petition filed by M/s. GRIDS Engineering and Contractors and another, inter alia, challenging the notice issued by the Bank under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002. The writ appeal has been preferred against the order of reference.
2. The writ appeal, the reference and the writ petition were initially heard on 16 February 2026 when Mr. Joseph Jose, learned counsel representing Mr. E.B. Thajuddeen, learned counsel for the Petitioners in ICR [W.P(C)] No.31 of 2025, Mr. Raja Kannan, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Siva Suresh, learned Standing Counsel for the Bank, made their respective submissions.
3. Before we commenced
The High Court should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 when effective alternative remedies under the SARFAESI Act are available; exceptions apply in cases of jurisdictional errors, frau....
A writ petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained if effective statutory remedies exist, requiring proper reasoning in interim orders issued by the court.
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 requirement for mandatory pre-deposit under the SARFAESI Act cannot be waived; failure to comply invalidates any appeals against recovery actions.
The main legal point established in this judgment is that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters involving recovery of dues under....
Courts should respect statutory routes for recovery before entertaining writ petitions in commercial matters, emphasizing the efficacy of specialized tribunals under 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 emphasized the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking constitutional provisions, reaffirming that interim orders affecting financial institutions must stem from substant....
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.
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
