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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5571

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
AMBILI S. – Appellant
Versus
CANARA BANK – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.AKHIL K.MADHAV, SRI.SATHEESH MOHANAN
For the Respondents: GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR(SC)

JUDGMENT

The prayer sought for in this Writ Petition is to regularize the petitioner's loan account, and to permit the petitioner to pay off the amount due in instalments.

2. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier, seeking the self-same relief, which was allowed vide Ext.P2 judgment. However, the petitioner could not effect payment by instalments, as granted in Ext.P2 judgment. This Court notice that the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be extended, except in extraordinary circumstances, in cases where action in terms of the SARFAESI Act is taken, especially when there is no illegality, as such, pointed out against such action. When the petitioner has already been afforded with a relief by granting sufficient number of instalments vide Ext.P2 judgment, this Court is of the opinion that the instant Writ Petition is not liable to be considered again.

In the circumstances, the Writ Petition (Civil) will stand 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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top