IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

THURSDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 10006 OF 2025 PETITIONER:

N. SADASIVAN NAIR, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN PILLAI, SREESAILAM, ASHRAMAM.P.O, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 002.

BY ADV M.R.SARIN RESPONDENT:

AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD, KOLLAM BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691 001.

BY ADV. C.K.KARUNAKARAN (SC)

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) to recover amounts due under credit facilities availed by the petitioner from the respondent bank.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to clear the outstanding liability in instalments, and to enable the petitioner to do so, the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act may be kept in abeyance. It is submitted that since the property of the petitioner is situated in Nagercoil, the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act has been issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court of Nagercoil. It is submitted that though the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act were initiated in Nagercoil, the loan account in question was availed from the Kollam branch of the respondent bank, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to maintain a writ petition before this Court, as at least part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that the petitioner deserves no indulgence at the hands of this Court. It is submitted that the bank had obtained orders for taking physical possession of the secured asset in the year 2023, and at that time, W.P(C)No.34910/2023 was filed by a person claiming to be a tenant. It is submitted that an interim order against taking physical possession was obtained from this Court on the ground that the tenant wishes to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 (4A) of the SARFAESI Act. It is submitted that the so-called tenant (petitioner in W.P(C)No.34910/2023) has not approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing a Securitisation Application under Section 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act and continued to enjoy the benefit of the interim order till July 2024. It is submitted that W.P(C)No.34910/2023 was later withdrawn, and when the bank was proposing to take physical possession, the borrower has now approached the Court by filing this writ petition through the same counsel, who appeared for the tenant in W.P(C)No.34910/2023. It is submitted that the filing of the earlier writ petition and the deferment of the proceedings for taking physical possession are obviously a collusive affair between the petitioner and the so-called tenant. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, I am of the view that there is considerable merit in the contention taken by the learned counsel for the respondent bank that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The conduct of the petitioner is clear from the facts narrated above by the learned counsel for the respondent bank. This Court exercises very limited jurisdiction in matters arising under the SARFAESI Act, and where the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands is not entitled to any discretionary relief that may be granted in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitu