Repeated non-compliance with court orders and attempts to delay proceedings can amount to abuse of process under SARFAESI Act.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 31^st day of January, 2026)

The petitioner, along with his wife, obtained a housing loan of Rs.15 lakhs from the respondent bank in the year 2012. As the repayment was not made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan, the respondent bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act .

2. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 25914 of 2024, which was disposed of by this Court on 19.07.2024, directing the petitioner to pay the overdue amount in ten equated monthly installments. The petitioner failed to comply with the said directions. Subsequently, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 17943 of 2025. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18.06.2025, wherein this Court did not entertain the writ petition and granted liberty to the petitioner to invoke the remedy available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act .

3. Aggrieved by Ext. P3 notice issued by the Commissioner pursuant to the order passed in M.C. No. 464 of 2024 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam, the petitioner has approached this Court contending that he has already applied before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for certified copies of the relevant documents in order to pursue the remedy available under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent bank strongly opposes the prayer and submits that when the bank attempted to take physical possession of the secured asset, it was obstructed due to resistance from the petitioner as well as local people. Consequently, the respondent bank approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking police protection, which has already been granted. It is further submitted that by judgment dated 18.06.2025, this Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. However, the petitioner has not applied for certified copies till date. Only on the eve of taking physical possession, the petitioner claims to have applied for the same and has filed the present writ petition.

According to the learned counsel, the writ petition has been filed only to delay the taking of physical possession and to delay the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act , amounting to an abuse of process of law. In view of the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition, and it stands dismissed.

Sd/-