Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. warns that repeated directions from appellate benches risk eroding judicial discipline and “strike at the heart” of finality in disputes.
In a pointed order highlighting the limits of intra-court appellate jurisdiction, the Kerala High Court has referred to a Larger Bench the question of whether a Division Bench can repeatedly interfere with interim directions issued by a single judge.
The case arose from a writ petition filed by M/s Grids Engineers and Contractors challenging recovery proceedings initiated by Union Bank of India under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. A single judge had granted an interim stay, which was twice set aside by Division Benches in separate writ appeals, each time directing reconsideration of the matter.
When the case returned before Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., he expressed concern that such back-to-back interventions undermined judicial discipline. He noted, “The back-to-back directions to consider the maintainability amount to virtually directing the single judge to decide until the result is acceptable to the Division Bench. The said direction is destructive of judicial comity and contrary to the very structure of intra-court appeals.”
The order went on to analyse the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution, describing the writ jurisdiction as “plenary in nature”. The Court stressed that its exercise depends on entertainability rather than maintainability, cautioning that any attempt to curtail this power without constitutional backing “amounts to a distortion of the constitutional scheme.”
Justice Nias also emphasised the purpose of the judicial process itself,, stating “The raison d'être of law and of courts is to secure finality in disputes by reducing the multiplicity of proceedings, a cause which leads to a proliferation of litigations, strikes at the heart of that principle.”
Finding that the Division Bench’s actions travelled “far beyond the legitimate bounds of intra-court appellate scrutiny” and contravened binding Larger Bench rulings, the single judge directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for consideration by a Larger Bench.
The referral is expected to settle recurring conflicts over the scope of intra-court appeals under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, especially in matters involving interim orders of single judges.
Case Title: M/S. Grids Engineers and Contractors and Anr. Vs. Union Bank of India And Anr.
Case No: WP(C) NO. 26067 of 2025
Coram: Justice Mohammed Nias C.P.
Advocate for Appellant: Advs. Thajuddeen EB, Arthur B George, PA Mohammed Aslam, Ramshad KR, Muhammed Riswan KA, Midhun Mohan, Fidil V John, and Kiran Narayanan
Advocate for Respondent: ASP Kurup, Advs. Sadchith P Kurup, CP Anil Raj, Siva Suresh, B Sreedevi, and Athira Vijayan.
Picture Source :
