Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56279
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
V.P. SREEDHARAN – Appellant
Versus
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 38559 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.ANUPAMA SUBRAMANIAN
For the Respondents: SHRI.M.SASINDRAN
The court affirmed that financial disputes must be addressed through designated statutory remedies, specifically through the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Headnote:The Writ Petition for mandamus seeks a stay on proceedings and waiver of interest due to financial hardship. The court, referring to South Indian Bank Ltd. (M/s.) v. Naveen Mathew Philip, emphasizes the statutory remedy in the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Thus, the petition is dismissed. It stated: 'The remedy available to the petitioner... cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact.' The decision confirmed the dismissal, allowing future recourse to the appropriate tribunal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner requests for financial relief through payment restructuring. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the court dismisses the petition but allows access to statutory remedies. (Para 3) |
| 3. judicial discretion on statutory matters is limited to established remedies. (Para 4) |
J U D G M E N T
(Dated this the 1st day of December, 2025)
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:-
a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondents to grant the petitioner breathing time and instalment options for the repayment of the amount due.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondents to defer the proceedings under Exhibit P1 and P2 notice.
c) To direct the respondent to consider waiving a part of the interest due from the petitioner in the light of their financial crisis. d) Pass such other writ, order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem, fit proper in the facts and circumstances of the above case.
e) Issue an appropriate order or direction to dispense off the production of translated copies of Exhibit P1 and P2.
2. An interim order was passed on 23.10.2025 directing the petitioner to remit Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thrity thousand) within a period of one month, and coercive steps were deferred.
3. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount directed to be remitted as per the order dated
23.10.2025, has not been paid.
4. InSouth Indian Bank Ltd. (M/s.) v. Naveen Mathew Philip [2023 KHC 6435], the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the remedy available to the petitioner to move the Debts Recovery Tribunal is a statutory one, and that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact.
In such circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioner’s liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
