Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 17348

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
CLEETUS Y – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK, KOTTARAKKARA BRANCH – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3505 OF 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.R.SASITH
For the Respondents: SRI. BINOY VASUDEVAN, SC

A borrower defaulting on loan repayment must seek remedies through the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act, not by writ petition.

Headnote:(1) Statute Analysis: The case primarily hinges upon the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Facts of the Case: The petitioner availed a loan of ₹12,00,000/- from the respondent Bank and mortgaged property as security.

Findings of Court:
The court noted the petitioner's default in repayment and the initiation of recovery proceedings by the Bank. (2)

Issues: The court framed the question of compliance with interim orders and available remedies.

Ratio Decidendi: The court opined that the petitioner’s recourse lies with the Debts Recovery Tribunal as per Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and not through a writ petition. (3)

Result: Hence, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and it stands dismissed.

Table of Content
1. borrower defaulted on loan. (Para 1)
2. interim order not complied. (Para 2)
3. writ petition dismissed. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 5^th day of March, 2026)

The petitioner availed a loan of Rs.12,00,000/-

(Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only) on 22.09.2020 from the 2^nd respondent Bank. For availing the loan, the petitioner had mortgaged all part and parcel of property having an extent of 4.05 Ares in Re.Sy No.404/8-5 and 2.83 Ares in Re.Sy.No.404/23-2 in Block No.23, Kottarakkara Village, Kottarakkara Taluk, Kollam District, as security for the above loan transaction. Subsequently, the petitioner committed default in repayment of the loan amount as per the agreed terms. In view of the said default, the respondent Bank initiated recovery proceedings against the secured asset of the petitioner under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 . Aggrieved by the measures so initiated by the respondent Bank under the said Act, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

2. On 30.01.2026, this Court granted an interim order deferring the coercive steps against the petitioner for a period of six weeks on condition that the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) within a period of two weeks. Today, when the case is taken for consideration, it is submitted that the said direction has not been complied with.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and taking note of the fact of non-compliance with the interim order as well as the efficacious 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 Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 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) 17348

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMBASANT BALAJI, JCLEETUS Y – AppellantVersusTHE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK, KOTTARAKKARA BRANCH – RespondentWP(C) NO. 3505 OF 2026

A borrower defaulting on loan repayment must seek remedies through the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act, not by writ petition.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
CLEETUS Y – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK, KOTTARAKKARA BRANCH – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3505 OF 2026