Kerala High Court
Sugith A vs Federal Bank Limited on 11 April, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 9008 OF 2024
PETITIONER
SUGITH A.,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. AYANIKKATTU SUNDARAN, AYANIKKATTU HOUSE,
KOUSTHUBHAM, PANTHEERANKAVU P.O,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673019
BY ADV S.K.SAJU
RESPONDENT
FEDERAL BANK LIMITED ,
BANAGALORE/BANASWADI BRANCH ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER SHIBJU R,
ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT AND DIVISIONAL HEAD
LCRD/KOZHIKODE DIVISION,
1ST FLOOR, FEDERAL TOWERS,
MAVOOR ROAD, ARAYADATHUPALAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016
SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.9008 Of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024 When the respondent-Bank initiated proceedings for recovery of financial advance made to the petitioner invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the petitioner approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to grant the petitioner 20 months time for repayment of the entire loan amount on such terms and conditions that this Court deem fit and proper to impose.
2. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to withdraw proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and redeliver the property to the petitioner on such terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper to impose.
3. To mould the remedy and grant such appropriate reliefs as the ends of justice so demands."
WP(C) No.9008 Of 2024 3
2. When this writ petition came up for admission on 18.03.2024, this Court passed an interim order on 18.03.2024 to the following effect:-
"There will be an interim order directing the petitioner to pay an amount of ₹10 lakhs on or before 27.03.2024. If the petitioner remits the said amount, coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall stand deferred till 01.04.2024."
3. Standing Counsel representing the Bank submits that the petitioner has not made any payment as directed by this Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent.
5. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to direct the respondent to withdraw proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 . WP(C) No.9008 Of 2024 4
6. It is settled law that no writ would lie against the proceedings initiated by a financial institution under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others [(2010) 8 SCC 110], the Hon'ble Apex Court declared that no writ petition shall be entertained against the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 at the instance of a defaulter since the statute provides for an efficacious alternate remedy.
7. In the judgment in Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KLT 784], the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that no writ petition would lie against the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of WP(C) No.9008 Of 2024 5 Security Interest Act, 2002 in view of the statutory remedy available under the said Act.
8. Following the judgment in Satyawati Tondon (supra), a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Anilkumar v. State Bank of India [2020 (2) KLT 756] declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation Act.
9. In South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen Mathew Philip [2023 (4) KLT 29], the Apex Court held that when the legislature has provided a specific mechanism for appropriate redressal, the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances.
10. In Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and others (W.P.(C) No.30803/2023), this Court held that writ petition challenging any proceedings under the Securitisation WP(C) No.9008 Of 2024 6 Act is not maintainable since the aggrieved person has an effective and efficacious remedy before the Tribunal constituted under the Act which is competent to adjudicate the issues of fact and law, including statutory violations.
In the light of the categorical pronouncements of law made by the Apex Court and by this Court, the above writ petition is not maintainable and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) No.9008 Of 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9008/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER