A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable when an effective statutory remedy exists under the Securitisation Act, especially in recovery related matters.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna S., J.

The 4^th respondent in W.P.(C)No.21833 of 2024 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the judgment dated 14.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. W.P.(C)No.21833 of 2024 is filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

"i) Issue a writ calling for the records leading to Ext-P9 in relation to SA 530/2022 on the file of the 3^rd respondent and to pass appropriate orders to meet the ends of justice;

ii) Issue a writ declaring that the manner in which respondents 2 and 3 are performing its statutory duty, is defeating the very purpose of conferring of quasi-judicial power on the said authority, which can be seen from any order that is passed by respondents 2 and 3”

3. The 1^st respondent herein is a private limited company managed by the 2^nd respondent. Going by the pleadings in the writ petition, the 1^st respondent is engaged in the business of construction and it had availed an overdraft facility to the limit of Rs.70 lakhs on 29.06.2017 from Kerala Gramin Bank (‘the Bank’ for short). When there was default in repayment, the Bank issued a demand notice dated 31.08.2021, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Security Interest Enforcement Act, 2002 (the ‘SARFAESI Act’ for short) with regard to the said overdraft facility and two other accounts to the 2^nd respondent, and the guarantors. Challenging the notice, respondents 1 and 2 and the guarantors preferred W.P.(C)No.18140 of 2022 before this Court and by Ext.P1 judgment dated 16.06.2022 the said writ petition was closed, recording the submission of the counsel for the appellant that since there were some defects in the notices issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, those notices had been withdrawn.

3.1 Thereafter, the appellant issued another demand notice dated 27.06.2022 demanding payment of a sum of Rs.88,59,605.33. The said notice was issued to the 2^nd respondent in his capacity as the proprietor of Prajith Builders and Developers and also to the guarantors. The respondents 1 and 2 filed an objection to the demand notice. However, the appellant did not furnish a reply to the said representation as mandated under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act. Challenging the recovery measures resorted to by the appellant, respondents 1 and 2 preferred S.A.No.530 of 2022 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Ernakulam (the ‘Tribunal’ in short) on 28.10.2022, wherein, as per the order in I.A.No.2618 of 2022, the Tribunal issued an order of status quo. In the said S.A., respondents 1 and 2 preferred I.A.No.1048 of 2023 seeking a stay against the Advocate Commissioner taking physical possession of the subject matter properties, pending disposal of the S.A. However, by Exts.P3 and P4 orders dated 15.06.2023, the Tribunal dismissed I.A.Nos.1048 of 2023 and 2618 of 2022.

3.2 Against Exts.P3 and P4 orders, respondents 1 and 2 preferred OP(DRT)No.258 of 2023 before this Court. Despite the pendency of the OP(DRT), the Bank proceeded with coercive proceedings and hence respondents 1 and 2 filed I.A.No.3650 of 2023 in S.A.No.530 of 2022 seeking an order against their dispossession from the secured asset. However, by Ext.P5 order dated 14.11.2023, the Tribunal dismissed I.A.No.3650 of 2023. Against Ext.P5 order, the respondents 1 and 2 preferred OP(DRT)No.529 of 2023 before this Court and as per the order dated 20.12.2023, this Court deferred all coercive proceedings till 05.01.2024 taking note of the fact that respondents 1 and 2 remitted a sum of Rs.35 lakhs as upfront pay