The High Court affirmed that the adequate remedy under the SARFAESI Act must be pursued before seeking judicial intervention, emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory options.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.21471 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 24.06.2025 in that writ petition and the order dated 24.10.2025 in R.P.No.1093 of 2025, passed by the learned Single Judge.

2. The appellants filed W.P.(C)No.21471 of 2025, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw all further proceedings against the appellants under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘ SARFAESI Act ’ in short), especially against the property measuring 1.06 acres in Survey Nos.502/2 and 507/1 situated in Pudussery Central Village, Palakkad Taluk, belonging to the 5^th respondent and all the assets situated therein. The appellants have also sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P19 possession notice dated 16.05.2025 issued by the 3^rd respondent Indian Bank Ltd., Stressed Assets Management Vertical Branch, Coimbatore.

3. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the 1st appellant is a public Limited company incorporated on 09.01.2003 under the Companies Act , and the 2^nd appellant is its Managing Director. The initial name of the company was ‘SH Cold Storage Private Limited’, and the same was subsequently changed to the present name on 01.12.2014. In the year 2012, the 1^st appellant had taken a land from the 5^th respondent for establishing a cold storage as per Ext.P3 agreement. The 1^st appellant had also availed a loan from the 3^rd respondent based on Ext.P3 and NOC from the 5^th respondent. Subsequently, the NOC expired, and the loan was subsequently provided by another entity created by the 3^rd respondent and 4^th respondent as a consortium, namely the 2^nd respondent. However, there was no fresh NOC in favour of the 2^nd respondent nor any new lease agreement between the 1^st appellant and the 5^th respondent. Hence, there is no valid mortgage for proceeding under the SARFAESI Act by the respondent banks. Further, the NPA classification is also in violation of the RBI guidelines, MSME Act and its Rules, apart from the Consortium norms violations by the 3^rd respondent. Therefore, the coercive proceedings initiated against the appellants are illegal and unsustainable. The 1^st appellant and the property sought to be possessed as per Ext. P19 are within the jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the appellants filed the writ petition before this Court.

4. On 24.06.2025, when the writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Single judge, by the impugned judgment, closed the writ petition. The said judgment read thus:

“The petitioner challenges Ext.P19, which is the Possession Notice issued by the Bank dated 16.05.2025.

Today, when the matter is taken up, the 3^rd respondent Bank, made available a copy of the proceedings withdrawing the possession notice dated 16.05.2025. Given the above, nothing further is required to be considered in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to challenge the actions of the secured creditor, if the petitioners are aggrieved. All the contentions of the petitioners are left open.”

5. Challenging the aforesaid judgment dated 24.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants filed W.A.No.1644 of 2025. By the judgment dated 04.08.2025, this Court closed that writ appeal, considering the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, holding that the remedy open to the appellants is to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge, seeking review of the impugned judgme