Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 11609
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
DR.MS. SHEETHAL MARSON – Appellant
Versus
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD OLLUR BRANCH – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 2745 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.K.MOHANAN
For the Respondents: SRI. MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SC
A non-borrower lacks standing to challenge a bank's e-auction sale under the SARFAESI Act.
Headnote:This judgment addresses the challenge by a non-borrower against an e-auction sale notice issued by a bank. The petitioner, not privy to the loan agreement, seeks to contest the sale initiated under the SARFAESI Act. The court found the petitioner lacked standing and upheld the bank's position. The main issue centered on the petitioner's status in relation to the loan transaction, leading the court to adhere to prior rulings rejecting similar petitions.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to auction by non-borrower. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court declines to entertain petition. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 12th day of February, 2026)
The petitioner is neither a borrower nor a guarantor to the loan transaction with the respondent Bank, who has approached this Court by filing this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 e-auction sale notice dated 29.12.2025, which was scheduled to be held on 23.01.2026. There is a further prayer to direct the respondent to accept the outstanding amount in 25 equal monthly instalments. The secured asset is 20.53 ares of property with all improvements and all easementary rights, and another property having an extent of 30.18 ares. It is brought for sale under Ext.P1.
2. The original borrower, along with his wife and son, had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 43325 of 2023, which was disposed of on 21.12.2023, directing the respondent to consider the One-Time Settlement proposal and to take a decision on or before 05.01.2024. The petitioner was granted a One-Time Settlement, which the petitioners therein did not honour. Thereafter, the original borrower, along with his wife, again approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 2378 of 2024, which was dismissed on 23.01.2024. The third writ petition is filed by the original borrower as WP(C) No. 18630 of 2024, wherein the prayer was to quash Ext.P1 notice issued under section 13(2) and the notice issued by the commissioner as Ext.P9. The said writ petition was disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Bank for a fresh One-Time Settlement proposal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed SA No. 778 of 2024 and moved this Court by filing OP (DRT) by the original borrower for consideration of the IA No. 4252 of 2024 in the said SA. An interim order was passed in the said OP (DRT), directing the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs. 2 crores towards the loan liability on or before 31.12.2024. The petitioner did not comply with the order, and therefore, the OP (DRT) was dismissed on 09.01.2025. IA No. 4252 of 2024, which was filed praying to restrain the Bank from proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, was considered, and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, on 20.01.2026, another IA filed as IA No. 302 of 2026 was rejected, and the SA is posted to 23.03.2026 for final hearing.
3. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner being not a borrower or a guarantor, is a stranger to the loan transaction. Since the original borrower as the guarantor has already approached and obtained various orders from this Court, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition, and if the original borrower is interested in prosecuting the SA, the same can be done in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
