Legal heirs of a deceased guarantor cannot contest proceedings under SARFAESI Act after notice served during the guarantor's lifetime, as they must seek remedy via Debts Recovery Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.33994 of 2025, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings initiated by the 1^st respondent Bank of Baroda under the provisions of Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and consequential proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 notice dated 30.08.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam in M.C.No.689 of 2025, in a proceedings initiated by the 1^st respondent Bank under the provisions of of the said Act; and a declaration that any action under of the SARFAESI Act, without initiating a legal mandate against the legal heirs of the deceased guarantor, is illegal and void.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the appellant petitioner is one of the legal heirs of late Babu S., who stood as a guarantor in the credit facilities availed by the 2^nd respondent M/s. Vaidhyadharma Herbals, from the 1^st respondent Bank. Respondents 3 and 4, who are partners of the 2^nd respondent Firm are also guarantors in the said credit facilities. 7.70 Ares of property comprised in Sy.No.104/29 in Block No.13 of Sasthamcottah Village owned by late Babu S. is one among the properties offered as security. Another property having an extent of 3.80 Ares in Re Sy.No.116/55 and 116/52, Block No.14 of Sasthamcottah Village owned by the 3^rd respondent was also offered as security. When there was default on the part of the borrower in repayment of the amounts due to the 1^st respondent Bank, the accounts were classified as ‘Non - Performing Asset’ (NPA) and proceedings were initiated against the borrower and the guarantors under the provisions of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. Seeking assistance of the court to take physical possession of the secured assets, the Authorised Officer of the 1^st respondent Bank approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam, by filing an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, which had resulted in an order dated 25.04.2025 in M.C.No.689 of 2025. Ext.P1 notice dated 30.08.2025 is one issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in that proceedings. After the order dated 25.04.2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in M.C.No.689 of 2025, one among the guarantors, i.e., father of the appellant - petitioner, died on 06.08.2025. The 3^rd respondent, who is the Managing Partner of the 2^nd respondent Firm intimated the death of one among the guarantors to the Advocate Commissioner, by submitting Ext.P2 letter dated 10.09.2025. The grievance of the appellant petitioner is that even after Ext.P2 letter, further proceedings have been taken in M.C.No.689 of 2025. The 3^rd respondent filed Ext.P3 application in M.C.No.689 of 2025 to keep in abeyance the order dated 25.04.2025 and to give directions to the Advocate Commissioner not to execute that order. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.33994 of 2025 seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

3. In the writ petition, the 1^st respondent Bank has filed a statement dated 03.10.2025, opposing the reliefs sought for. The said statement does not form part of the memorandum of writ appeal. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent Bank has made available for the perusal of this Court, a copy of that statement, wherein it is pointed out that t