IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH THURSDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 11786 OF 2024 PETITIONER:

KRISHNAN AGED 60 YEARS S/O ADIMA, VIRUPAKKATHARAYIL HOUSE, KUZHINGARA,EDAKKAZHIYUR PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 679562 BY ADVS.

ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN STEFFY V.J.

JOHNY K. JOHN RESPONDENTS:

1 THE GURUVAYUR CO OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD NO.F1652, GURUVAYUR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, HEAD OFFICE, WEST NADA, NEAR KSRTC, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680101

2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE GURUVAYUR CO OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD NO.F1652, GURUVAYUR BRANCH, HEAD OFFICE, WEST NADA, NEAR KSRTC, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN – 680101 BY ADVS.

T.R.HARIKUMAR ARJUN RAGHAVAN(K/1277/2012)

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6^th day of June, 2024 The petitioner, who has availed financial assistance from the Guruvayoor Co-operative Bank Limited, filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 and further coercive proceedings.

2. From Ext.P1, it is evident that the petitioner has failed to repay the loan promptly and consequently, the Bank has initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 notice.

3. Ext.P1 notice is one issued by the Bank invoking Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner has an effective alternate remedy against Ex.P1 notice.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11786/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED

05.10.2023 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER