SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 51993

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
GABRIEL T – Appellant
Versus
AXIS BANK LTD. – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43565 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.RAHUL KRISHNAN U.S., SHRI.KIRAN KRISHNA, SHRI.SIDDIQUE SULAIMAN
For the Respondents: SRI. PAULOCHAN ANTONY, SC

Legal challenge to SARFAESI Act proceedings due to medical incapacity; court allows installment payment and one-time settlement.

Headnote:The petitioners challenged the order dated 14.10.2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under the SARFAESI Act regarding the bank's possession of mortgaged property. The petitioners argued medical incapacity for loan repayment. The court emphasized adherence to legal precedent, allowing conditional relief on payment terms. The petition is disposed of with specific payment directives and the option for a one-time settlement.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges possession order due to health issues. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court emphasizes adherence to legal precedent in debt recovery. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 20th day of November, 2025)

The petitioners challenges Ext.P3 order in M.C.1287/2025, in this writ petition. The petitioners have taken a loan from the respondent bank for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs only) and another ₹6,00,000/- by mortgaging 3.80 Ares of property. When there was default in repaying the loan amount, proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act , and issued notice under Section 13(2) demanding a sum of Rs.35,90,547/-. Subsequently, the bank filed M.C. No.1287/2025 before the CJM, Thiruvananthapuram and by Ext.P3 order dated 14.10.2025, an Advocate commissioner was appointed to take physical possession of the secured assets. The Advocate Commissioner issued a notice dated 07.11.2025 informing that the physical possession will be taken on

22.11.2025.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was undergoing prolonged in-

patient treatment during the default period and is diagnosed for Ankylosing Spondylitis, Left Knee Septic Arthritis with Sepsis, Diabetes Mellitus, Systemic Hypertension and Dyslipidemina. Therefore, he is not able to remit the amount and seeks indulgence of this Court by granting instalments to wipe off the liability.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the same and submits that the account turned NPA in the year 2023. The outstanding as on today is Rs.45,45,624/-.

In such circumstances, relying on the judgment of the apex court in South Indian Bank Ltd v. Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311] , this Court cannot entertain this writ petition against the challenge to Ext.P3 order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) on or before 15.12.2025 and giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the DRT till 20.12.2025. All coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner is also free to approach the bank with the proposal for one-time settlement.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top