JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18th day of January, 2024 The petitioner, who has availed a Business Loan of ₹

35 lakhs in the year 2016 from the respondent-Bank, has approached this Court seeking to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to clear the liability referred to in Ext.P1 by way of 20 equal monthly instalments.

2. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondent and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that the total outstanding amount due from the petitioner as on 10.01.2024 is ₹

80,13,967/-. The petitioner has been consistently defaulting in repayment. Hence, the loan account was declared as NPA. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief, contends the Standing Counsel.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent.

4. It is evident from the pleadings that the respondent has invoked Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and filed C.M.P No.312 of 2019 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Manjeri. It is when the respondent has invoked the provisions under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2.

5. It is settled law that no writ would lie against the proceedings initiated by a financial institution under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 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 SARFAESI Act at the instance of a defaulter since the statute provides for an efficacious alternate remedy.

6. 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 SARFAESI Act in view of the statutory remedy available under the said Act.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.