Successive writ petitions are inadmissible when a previous dismissal exists without new merits.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI TH WEDNESDAY, THE 28 DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 8TH MAGHA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 3153 OF 2026 PETITIONER/S:

PATHUKUTTY ALIAS PATHUMMA, AGED 84 YEARS W/O. LATE MOITHEEN,DIRECTOR, M/S NOOH EXPORTS AND IMPORTS PVT. LTD.,RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 1312, MTRA-48, KARIYAPILLY HOUSE, CHUTTUPADU KARA, NEAR ST. GEORGE L.P.SCHOOL,EDAPPALLY P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682024 BY ADV SHRI.ANTONY JOSE RESPONDENT/S:

INDIAN BANK, KALAMASSERY BRANCH,FIRST FLOOR, AKKM TOWER, CUSAT JUNCTION,SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, PIN - 682022 OTHER PRESENT:

SRI. BINOY VASUDEVAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BASANT BALAJI J ======================

W.P. (C) No. 3153 of 2026 ========================

Dated 28^th day of January 2026 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Director of M/s. Nooh Exports and Imports Pvt. Ltd. For the business purposes of the said company, the petitioner had availed a secured overdraft facility of ₹40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) from the respondent Bank in the year 2014. To secure the said loan, the petitioner created an equitable mortgage over her immovable property having an extent of 9.09 Ares, comprising 4.51 Ares together with an 800 sq. ft. tiled residential building in Survey No. 3/33 A1 and 1.38 Ares in Survey No. 3/33 B of Edappally North Village, Kanayannoor Taluk. Due to financial difficulties, the petitioner defaulted in the repayment of the loan. Consequently, the respondent Bank initiated proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). A demand notice dated 13.06.2025 under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued, followed by measures under Section 13 (4) of the Act.

2. The respondent initiated the sale of the property and issued a sale notice on 07.01.2026 proposing to sell the secured asset by e-auction for an outstanding amount of Rs.1,87,90,003/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty-Seven lakh Ninety Thousand and Three only).

3. The petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash Ext. P3 e-auction notice and direct the respondent to regularize the loan by permitting the petitioner to repay the overdue amount in 15 (fifteen) monthly instalments.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 38498/2025. The said writ petition was dismissed, relying on the judgment in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip [2023 KHC 6435] . Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has not produced any document to demonstrate that they had approached the respondent Bank with a one-time settlement proposal. The petitioner cannot maintain successive writ petitions to challenge both the sale of the property as well as any further coercive proceedings initiated by the Bank.

In the circumstances stated above, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition, and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-