JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27th day of May, 2024 ₹

The petitioner, who has availed 15 lakhs loan from the Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Limited, approached this Court seeking to direct the respondent to grant 25 equal monthly installments for repayment of the entire outstanding loan amount.

2. It is evident from the pleadings that the petitioner has approached this Court when Ext.P1 notice was issued by the petitioner invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings of the Bank taken under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the petitioner has to approach the competent Tribunal.

3. It is settled law that no writ would lie against the proceedings initiated by a financial institution under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others [(2010) 8 SCC 110], the Hon’ble Apex Court declared that no writ petition shall be entertained against the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 at the instance of a defaulter since the statute provides for an efficacious alternate remedy. 4. In the judgment in Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KLT 784], the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that no writ petition would lie against the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in view of the statutory remedy available under the said Act.

5. Following the judgment in Satyawati Tondon (supra), a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Anilkumar v. State Bank of India [2020 (2) KLT 756] declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation Act.

6. In South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen Mathew Philip [2023 (4) KLT 29], the Apex Court held that when the legislature has provided a specific mechanism for appropriate redressal, the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances.

7. In Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and others (W.P.(C) No.30803/2023), this Court held that writ petition challenging any proceedings under the Securitisation Act is not maintainable since the aggrieved person has an effective and efficacious remedy before the Tribunal constituted under the Act which is competent to adjudicate the issues of fact and law, including statutory violations. In the light of the categorical pronouncements of law made by the Apex Court and by this Court, the above writ petition is not maintainable and it is dismissed.