Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MR. MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
ANOOP KUMAR C – Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed under article 226. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's analysis on sarfaesi jurisdiction. (Para 3 , 5 , 8 , 9 , 20) |
| 3. legal and factual disputes addressed. (Para 4 , 6 , 10 , 12 , 19 , 22) |
| 4. henderson principle and res judicata. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 , 18) |
| 5. writ appeal dismissed. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.46394 of 2025, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a declaration that the auction proceedings initiated by the respondents, i.e., the State Bank of India and its Authorised Officer is illegal; a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 sale notice dated 20.11.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent Authorised Officer as the same is illegal, void and violative of Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, due to non-publication on the designated portal and for arbitrary gross undervaluation; a writ of mandamus granting the petitioner a period of four months to clear the entire outstanding liability, by liquidating his foreign assets, keeping the sale proceedings in abeyance; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith furnis
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
