Wednesday, 13, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Krishnan vs The Guruvayur Co Operative Urban Bank ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 15729 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 15729 Ker
Judgement Date : 6 June, 2024

Kerala High Court

Krishnan vs The Guruvayur Co Operative Urban Bank ... 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. 11786 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

              KRISHNAN
              AGED 60 YEARS
              S/O ADIMA, VIRUPAKKATHARAYIL HOUSE,
              KUZHINGARA,EDAKKAZHIYUR PO,
              THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 679562

              BY ADVS.
              ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN
              STEFFY V.J.
              JOHNY K. JOHN


RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE GURUVAYUR CO OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD NO.F1652,
              GURUVAYUR BRANCH,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, HEAD OFFICE,
              WEST NADA, NEAR KSRTC, GURUVAYUR,
              THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680101
     2        THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
              THE GURUVAYUR CO OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD NO.F1652,
              GURUVAYUR BRANCH, HEAD OFFICE,
              WEST NADA, NEAR KSRTC, GURUVAYUR,
              THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680101

              BY ADVS.
              T.R.HARIKUMAR
              ARJUN RAGHAVAN(K/1277/2012)


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.11786 Of 2024
                                 2




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of June, 2024

The petitioner, who has availed financial assistance

from the Guruvayoor Co-operative Bank Limited, filed this

writ petition challenging Ext.P1 and further coercive

proceedings.

2. From Ext.P1, it is evident that the petitioner has

failed to repay the loan promptly and consequently, the Bank

has initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner is challenging

Ext.P1 notice.

3. Ext.P1 notice is one issued by the Bank invoking

Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002. The petitioner has an effective alternate remedy WP(C) No.11786 Of 2024

against Ex.P1 notice.

4. 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.

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 Securitisation and WP(C) No.11786 Of 2024

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002 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 WP(C) No.11786 Of 2024

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 hmh WP(C) No.11786 Of 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11786/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05.10.2023 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter