Kerala High Court
Ranjith R.S vs Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd 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. 4514 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 RANJITH R.S
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. LATE RAGHAVAN, AYYAPPAN KAVIL HOUSE,
KARUMALA P.O, BALUSSERY, SIVAPURAM VILLAGE,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673612
2 SOUMINI
AGED 68 YEARS
W/O. LATE RAGHAVAN, AYYAPPAN KAVIL HOUSE,
KARUMALA P.O, BALUSSERY, SIVAPURAM VILLAGE,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673612
3 PRAMOD R.S
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. LATE RAGHAVAN, AYYAPPAN KAVIL HOUSE,
KARUMALA P.O, BALUSSERY, SIVAPURAM VILLAGE,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673612
4 PRASEENA R.S
AGED 46 YEARS
D/O. LATE RAGHAVAN, AYYAPPAN KAVIL HOUSE,
KARUMALA P.O, BALUSSERY, SIVAPURAM VILLAGE,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673612
BY ADVS.
M.S.AMAL DHARSAN
NOEL JACOB
RESPONDENTS:
1 PIRAMAL CAPITAL & HOUSING FINANCE LTD.
ERSTWHILE DHFL, 6/1002F, FIRST FLOOR,
CITY MALL, KANNUR ROAD, KOZHIKODE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 673001
WP(C) No.4514 of 2024
2
2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
PIRAMAL CAPITAL & HOUSING FINANCE LTD.,
ERSTWHILE DHFL, 6/1002F, FIRST FLOOR,
CITY MALL, KANNUR ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001
BY ADVS.
DENU JOSEPH
MUHISEENA.V.Z(K/001437/2023)
MANJU M.K.(K/000436/2023)
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.4514 of 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024 The petitioners against whom the 1st respondent-Finance Company has proceeded invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P2 and quash the same;
(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari, or any other writ, order or any other direction quashing or setting aside Ext.P2 notice;
(iii) Issue such other appropriate writ, direction or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary.
(iv) Issue an order to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents produced in the above writ petition.
2. Ext.P2 impugned by the petitioners is a notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kozhikode invoking the provisions of Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of WP(C) No.4514 of 2024 4 Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
3. It is settled law that no writ would lie against the proceedings initiated by a financial institution under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 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 SARFAESI Act at the instance of a defaulter since the statute provides for an efficacious alternate remedy.
4. 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 SARFAESI Act in view of the statutory remedy available under the said Act.
5. Following the judgment in Satyawati Tondon (supra), a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in WP(C) No.4514 of 2024 5 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 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. WP(C) No.4514 of 2024 6
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 spk WP(C) No.4514 of 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4514/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN SANCTION LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER