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) 58785

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
SUSEELA. S – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43762 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
For the Respondents: SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM

Compliance with court orders and appropriate recourse to debts recovery mechanisms under SARFAESI Act is essential.

Headnote:The SARFAESI Act governs secured debts, granting rights to banks for recovery. The petitioner, in this case, contested a sale notice following loan default. The court reaffirmed the necessity for compliance with its prior order and prescribed the Debts Recovery Tribunal as the appropriate recourse, allowing for a settlement opportunity (para 1-3). The principal issue framed was compliance with prior directions and potential recourse (para 2). The court emphasized adherence to statute provisions while outlining procedural traditions, affirming dismissal of the writ petition (para 3, last line).

Table of Content
1. loan default and subsequent secured asset proceedings. (Para 1)
2. court's direction for compliance and alternative recourse. (Para 2)
3. final ruling on the dismissal of the petition. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 19th day of December, 2025)

The petitioner’s son availed a term loan for an amount of Rs.10 lakhs from the respondent-Bank. The loan was availed by mortgaging the petitioner’s property as secured assets. When default occurred in repayment, the bank initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act and issued Ext.P1 sale notice. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. On 24.11.2025, this Court granted an interim order staying all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1, on condition that the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.5 lakhs within a period of one month. Today, when the case is taken for consideration, it is submitted that the said direction has not been complied with.

3. In such circumstances, the remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act , in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court inSouth Indian Bank Ltd v. Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311] . The petitioner is also given liberty to approach the bank for One Time Settlement proposal.

The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

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