Jessy Philipose vs Authorised Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 15606 Ker

Kerala High Court

Jessy Philipose vs Authorised Officer on 6 June, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                         PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                 WP(C) NO. 5148 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:

    1    JESSY PHILIPOSE,
         AGED 57 YEARS,
         W/O. PHILIPOSE,
         MANNIL PUTHENVEETTIL,
         NADUBHAGAM MURIYIL, KULATHOOR P.O.,
         KOTTANGAL VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK,
         PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689588.
    2    JETCY ELIZABATH PHILIP,
         AGED 26 YEARS
         D/O. PHILIPOSE, MANNIL PUTHENVEETTIL,
         NADUBHAGAM MURIYIL, KULATHOOR P.O.,
         KOTTANGAL VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK,
         PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689588.

         BY ADVS.
         M.NARENDRA KUMAR
         HARSHADEV M.


RESPONDENTS:

    1    AUTHORISED OFFICER,
         KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
         REGIONAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688001.
    2    THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
         REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.104,
         OPP. MUNICIPAL TOWN HALL, ALAPPUZHA-1,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

         BY ADVS.
         N. RAGHURAJ
         K.AMMINIKUTTY

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP       FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME       DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.5148/2022
                                    :2:




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of June, 2024

The petitioners, who have availed a financial

assistance from the Kerala State Cooperative Bank and

against whom the Bank has initiated coercive proceedings

under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, filed

this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

"i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P1 and quash the same as illegal.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to consider Ext.P3 and grant the reliefs prayed for in it.

iii) Grant such other reliefs which this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case."

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing

the respondents.

3. Ext.P2 is a notice issued under Section 13(2) of

the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets

and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. If the

petitioner are aggrieved by either Ext.P2 or Ext.P3, the

petitioners have a right royal remedy under Section 17 of

the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets

and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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) 5148/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF PASS BOOK ISSUED BY THE ERSTWHILE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED

9.12.2021, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT 2002.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 4.2.2022 TO EXHIBIT P2.