Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 6219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Basant Balaji, J
ANANDABAI AMMA – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 37800 OF 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. Kannan
For the Respondents: ASP. Kurup, Sadchith P. Kurup, Siva Suresh, B. Sreedavi, Athira Vijayan

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed facts in loan recovery matters, directing petitioners to appropriate statutory forums.

Headnote:This judgment concerns the dismissal of a writ petition regarding loan default against a bank. The court referred to the SARFAESI Act and asserted that the petitioner has the right to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal instead of being resolved here (Par. 4). The ruling highlights the limitation of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226, emphasizing the need for proper legal avenues for recovery (Par. 4). The final outcome is the dismissal of the writ petition while preserving the petitioner's right to seek remedies at the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Table of Content
1. details of loan and interim orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court's jurisdiction limitations. (Para 4)

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

W.P. (C) No. 37800 of 2025 ========================

Dated 27^th day of January 2026 JUDGMENT The petitioner’s son availed a loan of ₹3,00,000/- from the 1st respondent Bank by creating a mortgage over the landed property belonging to the petitioner, having a total extent of 15.90 Ares (13.90 Ares in Re-Sy. No. 217/1 and 2.00 Ares in Re-Sy. No. 217/17) together with the residential building situated thereon, in Block No. 16 of Kunnathoor Village, Kunnathoor Taluk, Kollam District. Upon default in repayment of the loan, the respondent Bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act . Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. An interim order was passed on 13.10.2025 directing the petitioner to remit an amount of ₹1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) within one month, and further coercive steps were deferred. The time for compliance with the said direction was subsequently extended on 14.11.2025, 21.11.2025, 08.12.2025 and 05.01.2026. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 16.01.2026, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an amount of ₹1,00,000/- had been remitted in pursuance of the interim order dated 13.10.2025. However, the said direction had not been complied with in full.

3. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the balance amount as per the interim order 13.10.2025 has not been paid.

4. InSouth Indian Bank Ltd. (M/s.) v. Naveen Mathew Philip [2023 KHC 6435] , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the remedy available to the petitioner to move the Debts Recovery Tribunal is a statutory one, and that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact.

In such circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioner’s liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 6219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMBasant Balaji, JANANDABAI AMMA – AppellantVersusTHE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA – RespondentWP(C) NO. 37800 OF 2025

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed facts in loan recovery matters, directing petitioners to appropriate statutory forums.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Basant Balaji, J
ANANDABAI AMMA – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 37800 OF 2025