SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 14864

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
KAREESHMA RAJ – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 269 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.I.RAHUL, SMT.SHIFA LATHEEF
For the Respondents: SRI.JITHESH MENON, SC

Non-compliance with court orders precludes indulgence in loan matters, necessitating the use of statutory remedies.

Headnote:This case relates to an education loan of Rs. 17,31,000 availed by the petitioner from the State Bank of India with property as security. Due to default in repayment, SARFAESI proceedings were initiated. The court found that the petitioner failed to comply with a previous order to pay Rs. 3,00,000, and suggested seeking remedy from the DRT. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner's request to pay overdue amounts in installments was denied as no indulgence could be granted due to non-compliance with court orders.

Table of Content
1. loan agreement and security related facts. (Para 1 , 2)
2. request for repayment installments. (Para 3)
3. non-compliance with court orders and dismissal of writ. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27th day of February, 2026 The petitioner availed an education loan of Rs.

17,31,000/- (Seventeen Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Only) from the State Bank of India Civil Station Branch i:e the second respondent herein, in 2019 and the petitioner’s parents stood as guarantors. For obtaining the education loan, the property of the petitioner’s mother having an extent of 07.28 Ares comprised in Re Sy. Nos. 27 and in Re Sy No 85 in block No 117 of Mundakkal Village,Kollam Taluk which was evolved to her by settlement deed No 5436/1996 was offered as security and an equitable mortgage by depositing the title deed was created with the respondent bank.

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

08.01.2026, this Court directed the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakh only) within one month from that day, and thereafter on 12.02.2026, time was extended till 27.02.2026 for the payment of the said amount. When the matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the interim order on 08.01.2026, was not complied with. 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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top