Parties must exhaust statutory remedies before invoking High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 in SARFAESI Act cases.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.46146 of 2025 filed this intra-

court appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 19.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The appellant has filed W.P.(C)No.46146 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 assignment agreement dated 26.03.2013 to the extent it relates to the properties of the appellant.

3. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, the appellant was an account holder in the 1^st respondent bank from where he obtained a cash credit facility for his business. Ext.P6 assignment agreement dated 26.03.2013 executed by the 1^st respondent bank in favour of the 3^rd respondent J.M.Financial Asset Reconstruction company is bad as the same is done without informing the appellant and behind the back of the appellant and denying the opportunity for the appellant to pay off the then balance due and thereby to save his properties 6 in numbers as provided in Section

13(8) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 , (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’). For effecting the sale of the property, 30 days notice under Section 8 (6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules is required. But no such notice was given to the appellant, and therefore also the sale as per Ext.P6 made by the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to the 3^rd respondent as per Ext. P6 is bad in law. Section 13 (3A) of the SARFAESI Act was not complied with by giving the account details to the appellant, and therefore, the 1^st and 2^nd respondents were not entitled to proceed under (4) of the SARFAESI Act. The rights of the appellant for his properties are taken away against the property rights protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India . All the further steps for the sale, as per Ext.P6, are conducted without any basis or footing under the SARFAESI Act. Ext.P6 sale is done, not complying with Kerala Registration Rules, as the appellant’s properties are in Kerala only. There was no Central Registry of Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India (‘CERSAI’ for short) registration for effecting the assignment agreement/sale deed as per Ext.P6 by the 1^st and 2^nd respondents, and then also Ext. P6 is liable to be set aside to the extent the sale of the appellant's properties is concerned. The Registration particulars are also not revealed to the appellant, even as per Exts.P1 and P2. The same has resulted in the illegal denial of the appellant's right over his properties. The 1^st respondent bank did not have CERSAI registration as provided under Section 26 of the SARFAESI Act as on the date of the sale, and therefore, there was no authority for the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to effect registration of the sale/assignment agreement to the 3^rd respondent. The 5^th respondent, Reserve Bank of India, also has to control and check the sale and transaction done by the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to the 3^rd respondent Asset Reconstruction Company, being the controlling and governing authority of banks financial and related transactions in the country. Therefore, the 5^th respondent is also a necessary party in the decision of this case. No valuation of the property was done by the 1^st and 2^nd respondents before making a sale of the property as provided under Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002. The properties 6 in numbers valued for a sum of Rs.3,39,00,000/- in the year 2011 sold for a sum of Rs.1,48,55,196/89 in the year 2013,