Kerala High Court
Mrs. Staly. S vs The Authorized Officer on 6 March, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024/16TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 445 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MRS. STALY. S
AGED 38 YEARS, PALLIKKAVILKIZHAKKATHIL
MALIBHAGOM CHAVARA SOUTH KOLLAM,
PIN - 691 584.
BY ADVS.
P.R.MILTON
HARISANKAR S.
RESPONDENT:
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
STATE BANK OF INDIA, RAPC KOLLAM,
1ST AND 2ND FLOOR , RAVI'S ARCADE,
NEAR IRON BRIDGE KOLLAM, PIN - 691 013.
BY ADV
JAWAHAR JOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.445 of 2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2024
The petitioner, who has availed a financial
advance from the State Bank of India, has approached this
Court seeking the following reliefs:
(i) to issue a mandamus or any other appropriate
writ order or direction to call for the records relating to
issue of Ext.P1 demand notice and Ext.P2 possession
notice and set aside the same are illegal and
unsustainable.
(ii) to call for the records relating to issue of Ext.P4
letter issued by the respondent and direct the
respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in
Ext.P3 request of the petitioner by granting installment
facilities for paying the overdue amount along with the
regular EMI.
(iii) dispense with production of English translation of
vernacular documents.
(iv) such other appropriate order or directions as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature
and circumstances of the case.
(v) To allow the writ petition with costs.
2. When this writ petition came up for admission on
22.01.2024, this Court passed an interim order to the
following effect:
"There will be an interim order directing the
petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.5 lakhs within
a period of one month and a further amount of
Rs.5 lakhs within a further period of one month. If
the petitioner remits the amounts as directed
above, coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2
shall stand deferred for a period of two months."
3. Standing Counsel representing the respondent
submits that the petitioner has not made the payment as
directed by this Court.
4. Perusal of the pleadings would indicate that the
petitioner is in effect challenging the proceedings initiated by
the respondent under the Securitisation and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002.
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
AMR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 445/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT BANK DATED
16/08/2023.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE BANK, TO THE PETITIONER
AND HER HUSBAND DATED 20/11/2023.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER AND HER HUSBAND BEFORE THE
BANK DATED 22/11/2023.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF REPLY LETTER ISSUED BY
THE BANK ON 27/11/2023 TO THE
PETITIONER AND HER HUSBAND.
