Kerala High Court
Ranjith R.S vs Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd 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. 4514 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 RANJITH R.S
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. LATE RAGHAVAN, AYYAPPAN KAVIL HOUSE,
KARUMALA P.O, BALUSSERY, SIVAPURAM VILLAGE,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673612
2 SOUMINI
AGED 68 YEARS
W/O. LATE RAGHAVAN, AYYAPPAN KAVIL HOUSE,
KARUMALA P.O, BALUSSERY, SIVAPURAM VILLAGE,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673612
3 PRAMOD R.S
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. LATE RAGHAVAN, AYYAPPAN KAVIL HOUSE,
KARUMALA P.O, BALUSSERY, SIVAPURAM VILLAGE,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673612
4 PRASEENA R.S
AGED 46 YEARS
D/O. LATE RAGHAVAN, AYYAPPAN KAVIL HOUSE,
KARUMALA P.O, BALUSSERY, SIVAPURAM VILLAGE,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673612
BY ADVS.
M.S.AMAL DHARSAN
NOEL JACOB
RESPONDENTS:
1 PIRAMAL CAPITAL & HOUSING FINANCE LTD.
ERSTWHILE DHFL, 6/1002F, FIRST FLOOR,
CITY MALL, KANNUR ROAD, KOZHIKODE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 673001
WP(C) No.4514 of 2024
2
2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
PIRAMAL CAPITAL & HOUSING FINANCE LTD.,
ERSTWHILE DHFL, 6/1002F, FIRST FLOOR,
CITY MALL, KANNUR ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001
BY ADVS.
DENU JOSEPH
MUHISEENA.V.Z(K/001437/2023)
MANJU M.K.(K/000436/2023)
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.4514 of 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024
The petitioners against whom the 1st respondent-Finance
Company has proceeded invoking the provisions of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, have approached
this Court seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P2 and quash
the same;
(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari, or any other writ, order
or any other direction quashing or setting aside
Ext.P2 notice;
(iii) Issue such other appropriate writ, direction or
order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
necessary.
(iv) Issue an order to dispense with filing of the
translation of vernacular documents produced in the
above writ petition.
2. Ext.P2 impugned by the petitioners is a notice
issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kozhikode invoking the provisions
of Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002.
3. It is settled law that no writ would lie against the
proceedings initiated by a financial institution under the
provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 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 SARFAESI Act at
the instance of a defaulter since the statute provides for an
efficacious alternate remedy.
4. 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 SARFAESI Act in view of the statutory
remedy available under the said Act.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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
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
spk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4514/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN SANCTION LETTER
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER
