Kerala High Court
Maya V Nair vs State Bank Of India on 15 July, 2025
WP(C) NO. 25270 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:52068
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 25270 OF 2025
MC NO.48 OF OF 2025 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM/SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CYBER CRIME
PETITIONER/S:
MAYA V NAIR,
AGED 51 YEARS
M/S MAYI INDUSTRIES,SREEKRISHNA VILASAM HOUSE,
TC 22/691(OLD NO 9/1170-1), MANGALAM LANE,
SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695010
BY ADVS.
SMT.ABHIREMYA RAJ R B
SHRI.S.JAYANT
SHRI.GOVIND V.P.
SMT.GAYATHRI R.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE BANK OF INDIA,
CHIEF MANAGER STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH,
LMS COMPOUND, OPPOSITE TO MUSEUM WEST GATE,
VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
2 THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, SAR BRANCH, LMS
COMPOUND,OPPOSITE TO MUSEUM WEST GATE,VIKAS
BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
WP(C) NO. 25270 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:52068
SRI. JITHESH MENON, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 25270 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:52068
JUDGMENT
This is the second 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 W.P.(C) No.9630 of 2025, which was disposed of on 03.04.2025, granting an instalment facility, which was not complied with. The petitioner thereafter filed I.A.No.1/2025 seeking permission to sell one of the properties offered as security. The said application was also closed, relegating the petitioner to avail of the alternate remedies. The present writ petition also challenges the actions of the secured creditor against the defaulting borrower and is therefore on the very same cause of action, and resultantly, this writ petition cannot be entertained. WP(C) NO. 25270 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:52068
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 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 WP(C) NO. 25270 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:52068 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 judicial propriety and fairness by ensuring that parties do not approbate and reprobate or exploit procedural plurality to unsettle concluded controversies. WP(C) NO. 25270 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:52068
5. Given the above, this writ petition cannot be entertained and the same is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke the remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE DMR/-
WP(C) NO. 25270 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:52068 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25270/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 17-02-2017 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND PETITIONER DATED 24- 09-2021 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ALL ACCOUNTS BALANCE DETAILS OF MAYI INDUSTRIES AS ON 14-11-2024 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL DATED 05-10-2024 Exhibit P4(a) A TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL DATED 07-10-2024 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY PETITIONER AND HER HUSBAND TO 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.08.2024 Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 15 LAKHS ON 22/10/2024 Exhibit P6(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 40 LAKHS ON 24/10/2024 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29-11-2024 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 18-12-2024 Exhibit P9 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/02/2025 IN MC NO.48/2025 PASSED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE GIVEN BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION DATED 27/02/2025 Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO 9630 OF 2025 DATED 03-04-2025 WP(C) NO. 25270 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:52068 Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN IA NO 1/2025 IN WP(C) NO 9630 OF 2025 DATED 20-06-2025 Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 3/06/2025 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 12/06/2025 Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THUCKALAY SRO DATED 21/06/2025 Exhibit P16 THE TRANSLATION OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE