Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 26935

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
CHETTIYANKANDY KEEZHAYI KUNHIPATHUMMA – Appellant
Versus
THE CANARA BANK, SME BRANCH, MADHAV APARTMENT, THEZHUKKIL PEEDIKA, KANNUR-670006 – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 4938 OF 2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
For the Respondents: SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SHRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN, SRI.KURYAN THOMAS, SHRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM, SHRI.RAJA KANNAN

Writ petition challenging SARFAESI proceedings closed for non-prosecution, without prejudice to OTS remedy.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged coercive proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), specifically notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4). The court, upon admission, directed deposit of Rs.3 lakhs, later noting non-compliance with Rs.2 lakhs direction. The respondent bank submitted that proceedings likely finalised. The court closed the petition without prejudice to seek one-time settlement (OTS). Issues framed around challenge to SARFAESI proceedings and compliance with deposit directions. Ratio: Non-prosecution and likely completion of proceedings warrant closure, preserving alternative remedies. Writ petition closed without prejudice to OTS application.

Table of Content
1. hearing counsel and prior deposit directions noted. (Para 1 , 2)
2. non-prosecution leads to closure without prejudice. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank.

2. The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge the coercive proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act by the respondent herein. On 15.02.2022, while admitting the writ petition, the petitioner was directed to remit Rs.3 lakhs. On 25.05.2022, this Court recorded the submission made by the respondent Bank that the direction to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- has not been complied with.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank today points out that the writ petition has not been posted thereafter. He further points out that most likely, the proceedings pursuant to the notice impugned in this writ petition, would have been finalised also.

In view of the afore, this writ petition stands closed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the Bank for OTS facility, if any, by making an appropriate application.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 26935

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMHARISANKAR V. MENON, JCHETTIYANKANDY KEEZHAYI KUNHIPATHUMMA – AppellantVersusTHE CANARA BANK, SME BRANCH, MADHAV APARTMENT, THEZHUKKIL PEEDIKA, KANNUR-670006 – RespondentWP(C) NO. 4938 OF 2022

Writ petition challenging SARFAESI proceedings closed for non-prosecution, without prejudice to OTS remedy.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
CHETTIYANKANDY KEEZHAYI KUNHIPATHUMMA – Appellant
Versus
THE CANARA BANK, SME BRANCH, MADHAV APARTMENT, THEZHUKKIL PEEDIKA, KANNUR-670006 – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 4938 OF 2022