Kerala High Court
Benny Samuel vs The People’S Urban Co-Operative Bank ... on 14 August, 2025
WP(C) NO. 30076 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:61335
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 30076 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
BENNY SAMUEL
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. GHEEVARGHESE SAMUEL,
THOPPIL HOUSE, FLAT NO. B2,
SKY HEIGHTS, ROMA BUILDERS,
THRIKAKKARA NORTH,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682022
BY ADV SMT.K.ANILA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE PEOPLE'S URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
RB NO. 760, HEAD OFFICE, TRIPUNITHURA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 682001
2 THE MANAGER
PEOPLE'S URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
TRIPUNITHURA PO, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 30076 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:61335
JUDGMENT
Dated the 14th day of August 2025 This is the 4th round of litigation preferred by the petitioner challenging the measures taken by the respondent bank, the secured creditor, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short, the 'SARFAESI Act).
2. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this court by filing WP(C) No.24641 of 2023, which resulted in Ext.P2 judgment dated 27.07.2023, wherein the petitioner was granted an instalment facility by this court. Admittedly, the conditions therein were not complied with. Thereafter, the guarantor of the same loan filed W.P.(C) No.24441 of 2024, which resulted in Ext.P3 judgment dated 23.07.2024, permitting him to approach the bank for availing the one-time settlement scheme. Again, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 1904 of 2025, in which an interim order was passed on 23.01.2025, which was also not complied with. The petitioner then filed W.P.(C) No.1904 of 2025 in which Ext.P7 judgment WP(C) NO. 30076 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:61335 was passed on 05.03.2025 directing that the coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall stand deferred till 31.3.2025 and further directing the petitioner to approach the bank for OTS facility. This writ petition is also on the same cause of action, namely, challenging the actions of the secured creditor and therefore cannot be entertained.
3. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna and Ors. (MANU/SC/1343/2024), which relied on the decisions in State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain [(1977) 2 SCC 806], Devilal Modi v. Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam and Ors [AIR 1965 SC 1150], and the English decision in Greenhalgh v. Mallard [(1947) All ER 255 at p.257], to hold that where the same set of facts give rise to multiple causes of action, a litigant cannot be permitted to agitate one cause in one proceeding and reserve the other for future litigation. Such fragmentation aggravates the burden of litigation and is impermissible in law. The Court reiterated that all claims and grounds of defence or attack which could and ought to have been raised in earlier proceedings are barred from being re-agitated subsequently. This rule WP(C) NO. 30076 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:61335 stems from the Henderson Principle, which, as a corollary of constructive res judicata embodied in Explanation VII to Section 11 CPC, mandates that a party must bring forward the entirety of its case in one proceeding and not in a piecemeal or selective manner. Courts must examine whether a matter could and should have been raised earlier, taking into account the scope of the earlier proceedings and their nexus to the controversy at hand.
4. If the subject matter or seminal issues in a later proceeding are substantially similar or connected to those already adjudicated, the subsequent proceeding amounts to relitigation. Once a cause of action has been judicially determined, all issues fundamental to that cause are deemed to have been conclusively decided, and attempts to revisit any part of it -- even through formal distinctions in forums or pleadings -- fall foul of the principle. Moreover, any plea or issue that was raised earlier and then abandoned is deemed waived and cannot be resurrected. The overarching object is to protect the finality of adjudications, discourage strategic or delayed litigation, and uphold WP(C) NO. 30076 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:61335 judicial propriety and fairness by ensuring that parties do not approbate and reprobate or exploit procedural plurality to unsettle concluded controversies.
The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE LU WP(C) NO. 30076 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:61335 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30076/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13/7/2023 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN M.C. NO. 31/2023 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/7/2023 THUS PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C).NO. 24641/2023
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/7/2024 THUS PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C). NO. 24441 OF 2024 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING REF. NO.
1524/2024-25 DATED 26/11/2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23/1/2025 THUS PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C). NO. 1904 OF 2025 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 4/2/2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF RS. 5,00,000/- EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5/3/2025 THUS PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C). NO. 1904 OF 2025 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3/4/2025 THUS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BANK // True Copy // PA To Judge