Kerala High Court
Union Bank Of India vs M/S. Grids Engineers And Contractors on 11 August, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
W.A.NO.1802 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:60213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1947
W.A.NO.1802 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.07.2025 IN WP(C) NO.26067 OF
2025 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION BANK OF INDIA,
REGIONAL OFFICE KOTTAYAM, 3RD FLOOR, AMALA TOWERS,
ADICHIRA JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PIN - 686630
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNION BANK OF INDIA (E-ANDHRA BANK), THODUPUZHA
BRANCH, 1ST FLOOR, VELLARINGAT TOWERS, BY PASS
JUNCTION, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685584
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ASP.KURUP
SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP
SRI.C.P.ANIL RAJ
SHRI.SIVA SURESH
SMT.B.SREEDEVI
SMT.ATHIRA VIJAYAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 M/S. GRIDS ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS,
MMC/IX/456/A7, ATHIRA COMPLEX, MUDAVOOR P.O.,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER SHINE V. RAJ, PIN - 686669
2 SHINE V. RAJ,
W.A.NO.1802 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:60213
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. V.A. RAJAN, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. GRIDS
ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, MMC/IX/456/A7, ATHIRA
COMPLEX, MUDAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM,
RESIDING AT VARAMBATHUKUDIYIL HOUSE, VELLOORKUNNAM
P.O., MUDAVOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686669
BY ADVS.
SHRI.E.B.THAJUDDEEN
SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM
SHRI.RAMSHAD K.R.
SHRI.ARTHUR B. GEORGE
SRI.KIRAN NARAYANAN
SHRI.FIDIL V. JOHN
SHRI.MIDHUN MOHAN
SHRI.MUHAMMED RISWAN K.A.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.NO.1802 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:60213
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellants are the respondents in W.P.(C)No.26067 of
2025, which was one filed by the respondents herein-petitioners
invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P16
order dated 21.06.2025 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court, Ernakulam (Special Court for the Trial of Criminal Cases
against sitting and former MPs/MLAs of the State) in
C.M.P.No.2430 of 2025 in M.C.No.797 of 2022, by holding that the
said order is one issued without jurisdiction. The interim relief
sought for in that writ petition is stay of all further proceedings
pursuant to Ext.P16 order dated 21.06.2025 of the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, pending disposal of
the writ petition. On 18.07.2025, when the writ petition came up
for admission, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order,
which reads thus;
"The respondent Bank is directed to file a counter meeting
the allegations in the writ petition. There will be an interim
stay as prayed for, for a period of one month."
2. Challenging the interim order dated 18.07.2025 of the
W.A.NO.1802 OF 2025
2025:KER:60213
learned Single Judge, the appellants-respondents are before this
Court in this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section
5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
3. On 23.07.2025, when this writ appeal came up for
consideration, this Court passed the following order;
"The learned counsel for the appellants would point out that
the 1st respondent had earlier approached this Court in
W.P.(C)No.18030 of 2024, feeling aggrieved by the recovery
proceedings initiated under the provisions of the
Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. ('SARFAESI' Act
for short). That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P11
judgment dated 24.06.2024, subject to the modification in
Ext.P12 order dated 18.03.2025 in R.P.No.157 of 2025. The
1st respondent, who has not chosen to comply with the
directions contained in the said judgment/order, has chosen
to file another writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No.26067 of 2025
in respect of the very same Securitisation proceedings, in
which the learned Single Judge granted interim order dated
18.07.2025.
2. The learned counsel would point out the decision of the
Apex Court in Ramakrishna Medical College Hospital &
Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh and
Others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3194] and LIC Housing
Finance Ltd. v. Nagson and Company [2025 KHC
OnLine 7406]."
W.A.NO.1802 OF 2025
2025:KER:60213
4. The learned counsel for the appellants has filed an
argument note dated 29.07.2025, followed by I.A.No.1 of 2025,
seeking an order to accept Annexures A1 to A4 as additional
documents.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-
respondents and also the learned counsel for the respondents-
petitioners.
6. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the respondents-petitioners that I.A.No.1 of
2025 filed by the petitioners seeking clarification of the interim
order dated 18.07.2025 in W.P.(C)No.26067 of 2025 is pending
consideration before the learned Single Judge. The learned
counsel for the appellants-respondents would submit that
petitioners have filed the said I.A. since the interim order dated
18.07.2025 is not supported by reasons.
7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel
on both sides have raised rival contentions on the question of
maintainability of the writ petition. We do not propose to consider
that contention in this writ appeal, since the writ petition is still
pending consideration before the learned Single Judge.
W.A.NO.1802 OF 2025
2025:KER:60213
8. In LIC Housing Finance Ltd. v. Nagson and
Company [2025 KHC OnLine 7406], a decision relied on by the
learned counsel for the appellants-respondents, the Apex Court
noticed that despite the said Court in a series of judgments -
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC
110] being one among them - having cautioned the High Courts
to exercise writ jurisdiction judicially while entertaining challenges
to the actions by secured creditors under Section 13 of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 to enforce their security interest in view of
the scheme, purpose and object of the enactment, some of the
High Courts took the other way and grant interim relief on the
mere asking. The Apex Court still come across cases where,
without just and sufficient reason being recorded, proceedings
taken by secured creditors have been interdicted by the High
Courts, with or without imposition of conditions, amounting to
great disservice of institutional credibility.
9. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions
referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that, in the absence of
reasons recorded in the interim order dated 18.07.2025, the said
order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in law.
W.A.NO.1802 OF 2025
2025:KER:60213
In the result, this writ appeal is disposed of, by setting aside
the interim order dated 18.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C)No.26067 of 2025 on the sole ground that it is not
supported by reasons. Such an order cannot be sustained in view
of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to
supra. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way
of the learned Single Judge considering the interim relief sought
for in W.P.(C)No.26067 of 2025 afresh, after considering the legal
and factual contentions raised by both sides, including the
question of maintainability. So as to enable the respondents-
petitioners to bring up the writ petition before the learned Single
Judge, status quo as on today, in respect of the secured assets,
shall be maintained for a period of two days.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MIN
W.A.NO.1802 OF 2025
2025:KER:60213
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN THE REVIEW
PETITION ON 18.3.2025
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF IA NO. 1/2025 IN WPC NO.
26067/2025 DATED 27.7.2025 WITHOUT ANNEXURES
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.2.2020
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THIS DECISION IN UNION BANK
OF INDIA V. MANAF AND ORS. [2025 (3) KLT 132]
