SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 2193

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
RAJAN.P.K. – Appellant
Versus
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 41748 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.JAHANGEER
For the Respondents: ATHUL SHAJI, GAUTHAM H.

The appropriate remedy for loan recovery disputes lies in approaching the DRT, not through writ petitions.

Headnote:The petitioner's housing loan default led to SARFAESI proceedings by the respondent bank, which sought possession of the petitioner's secured property. The petitioner sought to regularize the loan repayment, arguing against foreclosure. The court referenced a Supreme Court ruling, determining that the proper remedy lies in filing with the DRT, leading to the writ petition's dismissal.

Table of Content
1. loan default leading to sarfaesi proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court's position on loan repayment extension and legal remedies. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9th day of January, 2026 The petitioner had availed a Housing loan from 1st respondent bank, for an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Only) in the year 2011 for a period of 20 years. The loan is secured by the property of the petitioner having an extent of

10.63 cents of land with a 600 Sq.ft residential building.

2. When there was default in the repayment, the bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner was served with a possession notice under Rule.8(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules for the recovery of an amount of Rs.10,40,252/- as on 24.01.2025. Thereafter, the Advocate Commissioner has issued a notice dated 21.07.2025, and informed that the physical possession of the property will be taken within 15 days. It is further submitted that although the physical possession of the petitioner’s property was proposed to be taken on 18.08.2025, the possession is not taken till date.

3. The present writ petition is filed to allow the petitioner to pay the overdue amount in installments and regularize the loan.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the same and submitted that on 07.11.2025, this court directed the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) within one month. Thereafter on 11.12.2025, when the petitioner had filed an application for extension of time, this Court has granted time till 19.12.2025, but the same was not complied with. Therefore, no indulgence can be granted to this petitioner.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and taking note of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in South Indian Bank Ltd v. Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311] , the remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the DRT against the proceedings initiated by the bank. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and it stands dismissed.

Sd/-

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