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) 2253

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
RAJU C K – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, KARUR VYSYA BANK LIMITED – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 41689 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.A.C.DEVY, SRI.A.M.ABDULLA, SRI.K.R.RAMISH, SHRI.RUPESH RAVINDRAN
For the Respondents: SHRI.P.S.GEORGE

The petitioners must seek remedy through DRT for issues arising from bank's proceedings rather than through writ petition.

Headnote:The writ petition was filed to allow petitioners to pay overdue amount in installments, following bank's initiation of SARFAESI proceedings due to loan default. Court cited non-compliance with interim directions and suggested petitioners approach the DRT as the available remedy. The court ultimately dismissed the petition based on precedent set in South Indian Bank Ltd v. Naveen Mathew Philip. The petition stands dismissed as per the order of the court.

Table of Content
1. loan default leading to sarfaesi proceedings (Para 1 , 2)
2. request for repayment installments (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9th day of January, 2026 The petitioner availed a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from the

2nd respondent Bank in the year 2017 by mortgaging the property belonging to the the 1st petitioner comprising a bearing No.9 in First floor of Guruvayurappan Apartment, East Nada, Guruvayur vide Sale deed No.1628/2016 of SRO Kottappady dated 08.12.2016.

2. When there was default in the repayment, the account happened to be classified as NPA by the respondent bank and the bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings against the petitioners. The respondent bank issued notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and approached the CJM Court, Thrissur and the CJM appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take the possession of the petitioners’ mortgaged property. The Advocate Commissioner had taken over the possession on

21.10.2025.

3. The present writ petition is filed to allow the petitioner to pay the overdue amount in installments and regularize the loan. 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 lakh only). Thereafter, an application was filed for extension of time, and the same was extended till 19.12.2025. Even today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount is not remitted and prays for time. Therefore, no indulgence can be granted to this petitioner.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and taking note of the non-compliance of the interim direction as well as 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 petitioners 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