Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
THE SUNDARAM HOME FINANCE LIMITED (M/S SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LIMITED) – Appellant
Versus
AJITH KUMAR.K – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner sought possession under sarfaesi. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. grounds for section 14 invocation. (Para 4) |
| 3. magistrate's duty regarding status quo orders. (Para 5 , 6) |
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 28th day of November 2025)
The petitioner, being a financial institution, sought the assistance of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, by filing M.C.No.80 of 2023 under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking physical possession of the secured assets created by the borrowers while taking a loan. While the MC was pending, the respondents filed S.A.No.716 of 2025 before the DRT – I, Ernakulam. On 15.10.2025, the DRT passed an order to maintain status quo in respect to the property under mortgage. Thereafter, the same was extended. In the meanwhile, the M.C.No.80 of 2023 came up for consideration before the learned CJM, Ernakulam, on 27.10.2025. On that day, by Ext.P3 order, the MC was dismissed on the ground that steps are not taken by the petitioner to substitute the commissioner stating that there is a status quo order in force, whereby the bank is precluded from taking physical possession of the secured assets.
2. The petitioner submits that when the ma
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
