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) 23846

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
SAJITH S – Appellant
Versus
CANARA BANK - REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1084 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.REHANA SHUKKUR, SMT.GLORY JESSY SAMUEL
For the Respondents: SHRI.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY, SHRI. G.VISWANATHAN, SHRI.SREEJITH K.

A writ petition regarding property sale under SARFAESI Act is not entertainable when an efficacious alternative remedy exists before the DRT.

Headnote:The writ petition challenges proceedings related to a sale notice under the SARFAESI Act, asserting the bank's failure to deliver vacant possession of the property. The court noted the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy to approach the DRT. Citing prior case law, it dismissed the petition stating the petitioner should pursue statutory remedies instead of extraordinary jurisdiction.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges the auction related issues. (Para 2 , 6)
2. court notes procedures on evidence and law. (Para 3)
3. counsels present conflicting views on the transaction. (Para 4 , 5)

P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

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

W.P.(C)No.1084 of 2026 …........................................................... Dated this the 27th day of March, 2026 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs;

i) Issue an order setting aside all the proceedings in pursuance of Exhibit-P1 Sale Notice and the consequential Exhibit-P13 Sale Certificate;

ii) Issue an order directing the 1st Respondent to refund Rs.4,13,500/- (Four Lakhs Thirteen Thousand and Five Hundred Rupees only) paid by the Petitioner on 28.03.2024 and Rs.6,22,750/- (Six Lakhs Twenty-two Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty) paid on 24.04.2024, as the 25% of the total sale consideration, together with interest;

iii) Issue an order directing the 2nd Respondent to cancel and close Loan Account No.160002460667 for an amount of Rs.32,00,000/- (Thirty-two Lakhs) of the Petitioner forthwith, without penalty or adverse credit reporting;

iv) Issue an order directing the 2nd Respondent to refund all amounts recovered from the Petitioner under Loan Account No.160002460667, including but not limited to EMI's already paid, interest paid, processing charges paid, incidental and administrative charges paid in accordance with Exhibit-P6, together with interest;

v) Issue an order directing the 2nd Respondent to cancel and close the Loan Account No.164021779011 for remitting the premium under HDFC Policy Certificate of Insurance No.GP000459-2340900 dated 30.06.2024 of the Petitioner forthwith, without penalty or adverse credit reporting;

vi) Issue an order directing the 2nd Respondent to refund all amounts recovered from the Petitioner under the Loan Account No.164021779011 including but not limited to EMI's already paid, interest paid, processing charges paid, incidental and administrative charges paid in accordance with Exhibit-P8, together with interest;

vii) Issue an order directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents to Pay compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty-five Lakhs) for financial loss, mental agony, and prolonged harassment caused by the illegal acts and omissions of the Respondents;

viii) Issue an order directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents to Pay the cost of this Writ Petition of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh).''

2. The petitioner is the auction purchaser of an immovable property in the e-auction sale conducted by the first respondent under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act . The petitioner was declared as the successful bidder in the e-auction and he remitted the entire amount before the first respondent. In Ext.P1 e-auction sale notice, it was stated by the first respondent that the secured creditor has taken physical possession of the property, but when the petitioner visited the property, he understood that the borrower and his family members are still residing in the property. According to the petitioner, the respondents are not taking any active interest in getting vacant possession of the property and handing it over to the petitioner. Later, the petitioner understood that the boundaries of the property was also quite different, from when it was put in the auction sale and that the borrower has created some easement arrangements with third persons, regarding the property. In such circumstances, the petitioner approached the respondents, by intimating them, that he does not wish to proceed with the transaction due to bank's failure to take vacant possession of the property and evict the borrower and it's failure to identify the property by demarcating the boundaries. It is when there was no response from the side of the respondents, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the afore reliefs.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner

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