Kerala High Court
P.A.Abdul Jabbar vs State Of Kerala on 3 April, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024/14TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 10748 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
P.A.ABDUL JABBAR,
AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O AHMED, PAZHEDATH HOUSE,
KUNJATTUKARA, EDATHALA.P.O,
ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683561
BY ADV. SRI.P.A.ISMAIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP.BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTEMENT OF FINANCE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE GENERAL MANAGER,
ALUVA URBAN CO OPERATIVE BANK,
HEAD OFFICE, MARKET ROAD,
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683101
3 THE RECOVERY OFFICER,
ALUVA URBAN CO OPERATIVE BANK,
HEAD OFFICE, MARKET ROAD,
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683101
BY ADVS.
SMT.LEELA R.
SMT.REKHA C NAIR, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.10748/2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2024
The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
seeking to quash Ext.P2 and to command respondents
1 and 2 not to proceed with Ext.P2 notice.
2. Ext.P2 notice is one issued under the provisions
of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing
the respondents.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is relating to the
proceedings initiated by the respondents under Section 13
of the Securitisation Act and the attempt of the respondents
to take over and sell the secured asset provided by the
petitioner.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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
SR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10748/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 THE PHOTO COPY OF THE LAND TAX
RECEIPT DATED 4/5/2022 WHICH ISSUED
FROM ALUVA EAST VILLAGE
Exhibit P2 THE PHOTO COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR SALE
OF THE PROPERTY, DATED 29/2/2024,
PLEDGED WITH THE BANK/2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 THE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION
DATED 7/3/2024 REQUESTING FOR TIME TO
REPAY THE LOAN AMOUNT BY 6
INSTALLMENTS.
