LIJIMOL.J.L vs THE AUTHORISED OFFICER CHIEF MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 19193

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
LIJIMOL.J.L – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER CHIEF MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.LIZA P. CHERIAN
For the Respondents: SHRI.MAHADEV M.J., CGC

Table of Content
1. petition filed for deferment of coercive measures. (Para 1)
2. petitioner's arguments against the legality of recovery certificate. (Para 2 , 3)
3. court advised to seek alternate remedies under the act. (Para 5)

P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

…………………………................................

W.P.(C)No. 9822 of 2026 ….........................................................

Dated this the 12^th day of March 2026 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to defer the coercive measures taken for possessing the property, in pursuance of Ext.P2 Recovery Certificate issued by the Recovery Officer.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent–bank and the Recovery Certificate issued consequentially, are illegal. She also contended that the Recovery Officer is not entitled to issue Ext.P2 Recovery Certificate and thereby, appoint an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the property.

4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and

2 opposed the said submission and cont

Click Here to Read the rest of this document