Kerala High Court
Mooliyil Viswanathan vs The Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd on 27 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 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 41653 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
MOOLIYIL VISWANATHAN
AGED 58 YEARS
'MOOLIYIL HOUSE', P. O. KOTTALI,
PUZHATHI AMSOM DESOM
KANNUR TALUK AND DISTRICT, KANNUR, PIN - 670005
BY ADV T.MANOJ KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
KANNUR REGIONAL OFFICE
KANNUR TALUK AND DISTRICT, KANNUR, PIN - 670001
2 MANAGER, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
VANITHA BRANCH, KANNUR, PIN - 670001
BY ADV M. SASINDRAN, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.41653 of 2022
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ or order to quash the proceedings
consequent to the proceedings u/s 13 (2) of the
SARFAESI ACT and Ext.P1 notice dated 21-10-
2022.
(ii) Granting order or directions permitting the
respondents to repay the overdue amount in
connection with the above said loan transaction as
installment basis which this Hon'ble court deems
fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.
(iii) Directing the respondents to pay cost of this
Writ Petition.
(iv) Any other relief the Hon'ble High Court may
deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances
of the case.
The petitioner has approached this Court when the
1st respondent-Bank initiated coercive proceedings for
recovery of amount advanced by the Bank to the petitioner.
2. When the writ petition came up for admission, this
Court passed an interim order on 02.11.2023 staying coercive
proceedings against the petitioner on condition that the
petitioner remits an amount of ₹10 lakhs within a period of
one month.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner could pay only ₹5 lakhs, that the petitioner is ready
to pay the balance amount in instalments.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Standing Counsel representing the
respondents.
5. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the
proceedings initiated under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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) 41653/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED NOTICE
SENT BY RESPONDENT NO.1 TO PETITIONER
AS PER SECTION 13 (4) RULE 8 OF THE
SARFAESI ACT
