Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13032

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
RAZAK P. – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1574 OF 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.J.GLADIS, SRI.E.B.SHAIJU
For the Respondents: SHRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SMT.P.V.PARVATHY, SMT.REENA THOMAS, SMT.NIGI GEORGE, SHRI.ANANTHU V.LAL, SHRI.BRAHMA R.K., SMT.SHERIN VARGHESE, SHRI.ANTONY THOMAS MOHAN

Non-compliance with court orders limits the court's ability to grant indulgence, and statutory remedies should be pursued.

Headnote:This case involves the interpretation of the SARFAESI Act, where the petitioner, after availing two housing loans, sought to regularize payments following initiation of proceedings by the bank due to defaults. The court found that the petitioner failed to comply with prior orders and directed the petitioner to seek remedies through DRT, denying further relief. Main issues framed included the lack of compliance with court orders and available statutory remedies. The court reasoned that non-compliance with the interim order prevents indulgence in this matter, referencing a recent Supreme Court decision emphasizing effective statutory recourse. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner took loans and defaulted, initiating proceedings. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner sought relief but did not comply with court orders. (Para 3)
3. court emphasized the need for statutory remedy via drt. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner has availed a housing loan in the year

2016 for an amount of Rs. 20,000,00/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) from the 1^st respondent. After that the petitioner availed another housing (Flood Relief) loan for an amount of Rs.2,000,00/- (Rupees two lakhs only). The secured asset in the loan transaction is 5 cents of property together with residential building having 1600 Sq.Feet.

2. When there was default in the repayment, the bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings against the petitioner.

3. The present writ petition is filed to allow the petitioner to pay the overdue amount in installments and regularize the loan. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the same and submitted that on 15.01.2026, this Court directed the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs only) within one month from that day. When the matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner did not comply with the above order.

Therefore, no indulgence can be granted to this petitioner.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and taking note of the fact of non-compliance with the interim order as well as the efficacious statutory remedy available as held in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in South Indian Bank Ltd v. Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311] , it is for the petitioner to approach the DRT against the proceedings initiated by the bank. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and it stands dismissed.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13032

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMBASANT BALAJI, JRAZAK P. – AppellantVersusTHE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD – RespondentWP(C) NO. 1574 OF 2026

Non-compliance with court orders limits the court's ability to grant indulgence, and statutory remedies should be pursued.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
RAZAK P. – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1574 OF 2026