Kerala High Court
Meenus Tourist Home vs The Federal Bank Ltd on 9 October, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
1
W.A.No.2371 of 2025
2025:KER:74951
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 17TH ASWINA, 1947
WA NO. 2371 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.09.2025 IN WP(C) NO.34342 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 MEENUS TOURIST HOME, DOOR NO. 434/4, OPPOSITE PRIVATE
BUS STAND, KALOOR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
M.D. DHANESH, PIN - 682017
2 M.D. DHANESH, AGED 62 YEARS
SON OF M.K. DAMODHARAN, METHANATH HOUSE, K. MURALI
ROAD, KADAVANTHARA P.O., ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682020
3 SADASIVAN M.P., AGED 82 YEARS
S/O PATHARI, MADATHIL HOUSE, MANAKAD P.O. THODUPUZHA,
IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN - 685608
BY ADVS.SRI.S.VINOD BHAT
KUM.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN
SMT.V.NAMITHA
SMT.GITANJALI SADAN PILLAI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., LCRD/ERNAKULAM DIVISION, GROUND
FLOOR, FEDERAL TOWERS, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM
REPRESENTED BY VICE PRESIDENT, PIN - 682031
2 AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.,
LCRD/ERNAKULAM DIVISION, GROUND FLOOR, FEDERAL TOWERS,
MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2
W.A.No.2371 of 2025
2025:KER:74951
3 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., M.G. ROAD SOUTH BRANCH,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682016
BY ADVS. SHRI.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY
SHRI.SREEJITH K.
SHRI. G.VISWANATHAN
SMT.ASWNI M.P.
SHRI.S.NIKHIL RAJEEV
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.A.No.2371 of 2025
2025:KER:74951
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The 1st appellant is a partnership firm and appellants 2 and 3 are its partners. They filed W.P.(C)No.34342 of 2025, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 demand notice dated 25.10.2019 and Ext.P4 communication dated 29.08.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent Authorised Officer of the 1st respondent Bank under the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act); a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to accept such amount in full and final satisfaction of the amounts due from them in loan Account Nos.11535600004487 and 11537600052029 as may be determined by this Court, after waiving interest and penal interest, the accrual of which is attributable to the respondents.
2. On 19.09.2025, when the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Single Judge closed the same, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 4 W.A.No.2371 of 2025
2025:KER:74951 Paragraph 2 and also the last paragraph of the judgment dated 19.09.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.34342 of 2025 read thus;
"2. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the account was termed NPA in the year 2019. The remedy of the petitioners is to challenge the actions of the secured creditor, invoking Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to avail of the same, and without prejudice to any of the contentions, the writ petition is closed."
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.09.2025 of the learned Single Judge, the appellants-petitioners are before this Court in this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants- petitioners and also the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The issue that requires consideration in this writ appeal is as to whether any interference is warranted in the judgment dated 19.09.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.34342 of 2025.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners would contend that the learned Single Judge committed a grave 5 W.A.No.2371 of 2025 2025:KER:74951 error in declining the reliefs sought for in W.P.(C)No.34342 of 2025. The learned Single Judge ought to have noticed that the alternate remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act by approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal is ineffective and inadequate. The learned counsel would place reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra [(2002) 1 SCC 367].
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the appellant-petitioner cannot seek interference of this Court on the proceedings initiated by the secured creditor under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, no interference in the judgment dated 19.09.2025 of the learned Single Judge is warranted.
7. In South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311], in the context of the challenge made against the notices issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the Apex Court reiterated the settled position of law on the interference of the High Court invoking Article 226 of 6 W.A.No.2371 of 2025 2025:KER:74951 the Constitution of India in commercial matters, where an effective and efficacious alternative forum has been constituted through a statute. In the said decision, the Apex Court took judicial notice of the fact that certain High Courts continue to interfere in such matters, leading to a regular supply of cases before the Apex Court. The Apex Court reiterated that a writ of certiorari is to be issued over a decision when the court finds that the process does not conform to the law or the statute. In other words, courts are not expected to substitute themselves with the decision-making authority while finding fault with the process along with the reasons assigned. Such a writ is not expected to be issued to remedy all violations. When a Tribunal is constituted, it is expected to go into the issues of fact and law, including a statutory violation. A question as to whether such a violation would be over a mandatory prescription as against a discretionary one is primarily within the domain of the Tribunal. The issues governing waiver, acquiescence and estoppel are also primarily within the domain of the Tribunal. The object and reasons behind the SARFAESI Act are very clear as observed in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [(2004) 4 SCC 7 W.A.No.2371 of 2025 2025:KER:74951 311]. While it facilitates a faster and smoother mode of recovery sans any interference from the court, it does provide a fair mechanism in the form of the Tribunal being manned by a legally trained mind. The Tribunal is clothed with a wide range of powers to set aside an illegal order, and thereafter, grant consequential reliefs, including repossession and payment of compensation and costs. Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Actgives an expansive meaning to the expression 'any person', who could approach the Tribunal.
8. In Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311] the Apex Court noticed that, in matters under the SARFAESI Act, approaching the High Court for the consideration of an offer by the borrower is also frowned upon by the Apex Court. A writ of mandamus is a prerogative writ. The court cannot exercise the said power in the absence of any legal right. More circumspection is required in a financial transaction, particularly when one of the parties would not come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. When a statute prescribes a particular mode, an attempt to circumvent that mode shall not be encouraged by a writ court. A litigant cannot avoid the non- 8 W.A.No.2371 of 2025
2025:KER:74951 compliance of approaching the Tribunal, which requires the prescription of fees, and use the constitutional remedy as an alternative. In paragraph 17 of the decision, the Apex Court reiterated the position of law regarding the interference of the High Courts in matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act by quoting its earlier decisions in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas [(2003) 10 SCC 733], United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110], State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [(2018) 3 SCC 85], Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir [(2022) 5 SCC 345] and Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu [(2023) 2 SCC 168] wherein the said practice has been deprecated while requesting the High Courts not to entertain such cases. In paragraph 18 of the said decision, the Apex Court observed that the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are rather wide, but are required to be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances in matters pertaining to proceedings and adjudicatory scheme qua a statute, more so in commercial matters involving a lender and a borrower, when the legislature has provided for a specific 9 W.A.No.2371 of 2025 2025:KER:74951 mechanism for appropriate redressal.
9. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 19.09.2025 for not entertaining W.P.(C)No.34342 of 2025 in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India, in view of the statutory remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warranting an interference in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.
10. In the result, this writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed; however, leaving open the legal contentions raised by the appellants relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra [(2002) 1 SCC 367].
Based on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners, we make it clear that the dismissal of this writ appeal will not stand in the way of the appellants approaching the Bank to avail the benefit of One Time 10 W.A.No.2371 of 2025 2025:KER:74951 Settlement (OTS), after complying with the requirements of OTS Scheme.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE AV