Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Herrose K.M. – Appellant
Versus
Manager, South Indian Bank, Aluva Branch – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of writ petition and single judge dismissal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. appeal contentions by parties. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. relief denied for lack of pleadings. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. broad reliefs need proper parties. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. compensation claim and prior proceedings. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. dismissal for unclean hands and suppression. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.
1. The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.5856 of 2026, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
“(1) direct all banks to address summonses seeking litigant’s financial data with due diligence, seeking clarification on ambiguity, honouring privacy, relevant laws and judicial precedents;
(2) direct all registry staff of all courts in High Court’s territorial jurisdiction to strictly follow verification protocols and ensure that non-vakalath counsel do not “act or plead” in Court, honouring Order III Rule 4 of CPC;
(3) direct the respondent-bank to pay compensation to the petitioner, if this Hon’ble Court finds it just and reasonable, any amount at Court’s discretion, for the aforemen
Writ petitions dismissed for lack of pleadings, improper parties, and suppression of material facts; banks bound by court summons.
Litigants cannot invoke writ jurisdiction for claims rendered unenforceable by the law of limitation after significant delays.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and the consequences of suppression of material facts.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner cannot initiate parallel proceedings on the same subject matter by filing a writ petition while already having initiated an appea....
Suppression of material facts disentitles a party to invoke equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
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
