Kerala High Court
Aneesha Fahad vs Union Of India on 15 July, 2025
WP(C) NO. 25938 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:52087
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. 25938 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
ANEESHA FAHAD,
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O. FAHAD, ROPRIETRIX, M/S. ABOOS FOOD AND
BEVERAGES, 18/425, EDAPPALLY-PUKKATUPADY ROAD,
KANGARAPPADY, VADACODE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682021
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR
SMT.T.M.BINITHA
SMT.SREELAKSHMI S.J.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES,
UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PIN - 110001
2 THE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,
IV FLOOR, ATMARAM HOUSE, TOLSTOY MARG, NEW
DELHI,REP.BY GENERAL MANAGER, PIN - 110001
3 CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL
ENTERPRISES ,
7TH FLOOR, SIDBI, SWAVALAMBAN BHAVAN, C-11, G-
BLOCK, BKC (BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX), BANDRA EAST,
MUMBAI, REP. BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PIN
- 400051
WP(C) NO. 25938 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:52087
4 BANK OF BARODA,
VIJAYA COMPLEX, VAZHAKKALA ROAD, GROUND FLOOR,
CIVIL LANE, KAKKANAD WEST,CHEMBUMUKKU, KOCHI,
KERALA,REP.BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 682021
5 BANK OF BARODA,
ERNAKULAM NORTH BRANCH,GROUND FLOOR, MATHER
SQUARE, OPP. TOWN RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM
NORTH, ERNAKULAM, REP.BY THE CHIEF MANAGER, PIN
- 682018
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SC. ,
SMT. O.M. SHALINA, DSG.
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. 25938 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:52087
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.41289/2023 (Ext.P2) in which an instalment facility was granted by this court. Against the judgment in Ext.P2, RP No.164/2024 was again filed, wherein the earlier judgment was modified and the dates for payment were varied. 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.
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], WP(C) NO. 25938 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:52087 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 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.
WP(C) NO. 25938 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:52087
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.
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.
WP(C) NO. 25938 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:52087 Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE DMR/-
WP(C) NO. 25938 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:52087 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25938/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE UDYAM REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER BEARING NO. KL-02-0042483 DT. NIL Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 41289/2023 DT. 19/12/2023.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
R.P.NO.164/2024 IN W.P.(C) NO.
41289/2023 DT. 11/03/2024.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEME DETAILS OF THE
'CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND SCHEME FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES' DT. NIL.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 DT. 07/01/2025 UNDER 13(2) OF THE SARFEASI ACT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SALE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 DT. 04/06/2025 UNDER RULE 8(6) AND 9(1) OF THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, 2002.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE CAUSED
TO BE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER
DT.17/06/2025.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARDS
EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P7 BY
RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 5.