Kerala High Court
Sugith A vs Federal Bank Limited on 11 April, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 9008 OF 2024
PETITIONER
SUGITH A.,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. AYANIKKATTU SUNDARAN, AYANIKKATTU HOUSE,
KOUSTHUBHAM, PANTHEERANKAVU P.O,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673019
BY ADV S.K.SAJU
RESPONDENT
FEDERAL BANK LIMITED ,
BANAGALORE/BANASWADI BRANCH ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER SHIBJU R,
ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT AND DIVISIONAL HEAD
LCRD/KOZHIKODE DIVISION,
1ST FLOOR, FEDERAL TOWERS,
MAVOOR ROAD, ARAYADATHUPALAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016
SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.9008 Of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024
When the respondent-Bank initiated proceedings for
recovery of financial advance made to the petitioner invoking
the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002, the petitioner approached this Court seeking the
following reliefs:-
"1. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the
respondent to grant the petitioner 20 months time for
repayment of the entire loan amount on such terms and
conditions that this Court deem fit and proper to impose.
2. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the
respondent to withdraw proceedings under the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and redeliver
the property to the petitioner on such terms and
conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper to
impose.
3. To mould the remedy and grant such appropriate
reliefs as the ends of justice so demands."
WP(C) No.9008 Of 2024
2. When this writ petition came up for admission on
18.03.2024, this Court passed an interim order on
18.03.2024 to the following effect:-
"There will be an interim order directing the
petitioner to pay an amount of ₹10 lakhs on or before
27.03.2024. If the petitioner remits the said amount,
coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall stand
deferred till 01.04.2024."
3. Standing Counsel representing the Bank submits
that the petitioner has not made any payment as directed by
this Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Standing Counsel representing the
respondent.
5. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to direct
the respondent to withdraw proceedings under the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 .
WP(C) No.9008 Of 2024
6. It is settled law that no writ would lie against the
proceedings initiated by a financial institution under the
provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002. In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and
others [(2010) 8 SCC 110], the Hon'ble Apex Court declared
that no writ petition shall be entertained against the
proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 at the instance of a defaulter
since the statute provides for an efficacious alternate
remedy.
7. In the judgment in Authorised Officer, State
Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KLT 784],
the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that no writ petition would
lie against the proceedings under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
WP(C) No.9008 Of 2024
Security Interest Act, 2002 in view of the statutory remedy
available under the said Act.
8. Following the judgment in Satyawati Tondon
(supra), a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in
Anilkumar v. State Bank of India [2020 (2) KLT 756]
declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India against the proceedings initiated under
the Securitisation Act.
9. In South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen
Mathew Philip [2023 (4) KLT 29], the Apex Court held that
when the legislature has provided a specific mechanism for
appropriate redressal, the powers conferred under Article
226 of the Constitution of India shall be exercised only in
extraordinary circumstances.
10. In Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and
others (W.P.(C) No.30803/2023), this Court held that writ
petition challenging any proceedings under the Securitisation
WP(C) No.9008 Of 2024
Act is not maintainable since the aggrieved person has an
effective and efficacious remedy before the Tribunal
constituted under the Act which is competent to adjudicate
the issues of fact and law, including statutory violations.
In the light of the categorical pronouncements of law
made by the Apex Court and by this Court, the above writ
petition is not maintainable and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
hmh
WP(C) No.9008 Of 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9008/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
19.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER
