Kerala High Court
Vijayakumar Nair vs The Authorised Officer And Associate ... on 28 May, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 8792 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 VIJAYAKUMAR NAIR
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O KUNNAMPOZHAT RAMANKUTTY NAIR,
A/2 PANJAMRUT CHSL, PLOT NO: 25, VEER
SAVARKAR,PANCHPAKHADI, THANE (WEST),
MAHARASHTRA., PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
HOUSE NO: 15/486-A,KOLAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KUTTUR VILLAGE, PUNKUNNAM, MLA ROAD,
NEAR NAITHALAKAVU TEMPLE, THRISSUR TALUK,
AYYANTHOLE SUB DISTRICT,THRISSUR - 680013.
2 SUNITHA VIJAYAKUMAR
AGED 48 YEARS
HOUSE NO: 15/486-A,KOLAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KUTTUR VILLAGE, PUNKUNNAM, MLA ROAD,
NEAR NAITHALAKAVU TEMPLE, THRISSUR TALUK,
AYYANTHOLE SUB DISTRICT,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680013.
BY ADVS.
SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR
BENNY ANTONY PAREL
ANOOP SEBASTIAN
PRAMITHA AUGUSTINE
ADITHYA KIRAN V.E
ADRISYA S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AND
ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT
THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI BRANCH,
FORT, REPRESENTED BY SYAMKUMAR S, LCRD,
THRISSUR DIVISION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001.
W.P.(C)No.8792 of 2024
:2:
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI BRANCH,
FORT MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 400001.
BY ADV.SRI.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.8792 of 2024
:3:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024
The writ petitioner, who has availed financial assistance
from the Federal Bank Limited and against whom
proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002, were initiated, has filed this writ petition seeking the
following reliefs:-
"i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or appropriate writ
or directions to call for the records leading up to Ext.P3
and quash the same.
ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or appropriate
writ or direction directing the respondent to allow the
petitioner to avail the facility of restructuring of the
existing loan by clearing the existing actual dues in
equal instalments as directed by this Honourable Court.
iii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or appropriate
writ or direction directing the respondents to consider
and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 in accordance
with law an affording the petitioners an opportunity of
hearing.
iv. May dispense with filing translation of
vernacular documents
v. Pass such other order or direction as this
Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
2. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P3 in this writ
petition. Ext.P3 is a notice issued by the Advocate
Commissioner in a proceedings under Section 14 of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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. It is made
clear the the petitioners will be at liberty to approach the
Bank for any other settlement / One Time Settlement in the
matter.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ams
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8792/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY
CERTIFICATE NO: 405289 DATED
17.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL
AUTHORITY, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CRL. M P NO:
1690/2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR
DATED 7.2.2024.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED
19.02.2024, RECEIVED ON 27.02.2024.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.02.2024.
