Sobha T.G vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank
2025 Latest Caselaw 3434 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sobha T.G vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank on 13 August, 2025

Author: Anil K.Narendran

Bench: Anil K.Narendran

                                    1
WA No.1962 of 2025
                                                   2025:KER:61331

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

                                    &

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.

   WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947

                         WA NO. 1962 OF 2025

         AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2025 IN WP(C) NO.16684 OF

2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

             SOBHA T.G
             AGED 57 YEARS
             W/O THE LATE SATHEESH, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, NATTIKA
             BEACH PO, NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR,
             PIN - 680566


             BY ADV SRI.P.SIVARAJ


RESPONDENT/S:

     1       KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
             THRIPRAYAR, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,
             NATTIKA PO, THRISSUR, PIN - 680566

     2       AREA MANAGER
             KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, THRIPRAYAR NATTIKA PO,
             THRISSUR, PIN - 680566


             BY ADV SHRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR


      THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  2
WA No.1962 of 2025
                                                   2025:KER:61331


                           JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.16684 of 2025 filed this writ

appeal under section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958,

challenging the judgment dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned

Single Judge dismissing that writ petition, without prejudice to the

right of the appellant to challenge the measures taken by the

secured creditor as provided under the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act' for short), if so advised.

2. According to the appellant, she is a widow having

ailments. Her husband died on 03.08.2021 due to COVID-19,

after undergoing a prolonged treatment. She approached this

Court with the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the action initiated by

the 1st respondent Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI

Act, which resulted in issuance of Ext.P3 notice dated 10.03.2025

by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial

Magistrate Court, Thrissur, in a petition filed by the Bank under

2025:KER:61331

Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, as C.M.P. No.2288 of 2025, for

taking possession of the property previously owned by the

appellant's husband, having an extent of 10.42 Ares in resurvey

No.36/4 of Nattika Village, Chavakkad Taluk of Thrissur District.

In the writ petition, the appellant sought the following reliefs:

"(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 based on order in C.M.P No.2288/2025 of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur and quash the same;

(ii) To declare that Ext.P3 notice issued pursuant to CMP No.288/2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur as illegal and legally unsustainable;

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding and compelling the respondents not to take any further coercive action against the petitioner unless the respondent bank is amenable to impose a legally enforceable amount upon the petitioner after giving her reasonable time to pay the said amount".

3. By the judgment dated 01.08.2025, the learned Single

Judge dismissed the writ petition. Paragraphs 4, 5 and the last

paragraph of that judgment read thus:

"4. This Court exercises very limited jurisdiction in matters arising under the SARFAESI Act, as repeatedly held by the Honourable Supreme Court in several judgments, including

2025:KER:61331

in South Indian Bank Ltd. and Ors. v. Naveen Mathew Philip and Ors. [2023 17 SCC 311] that the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are rather wide but are required to be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances in matters pertaining to proceedings and adjudicatory scheme qua a statute, more so in commercial matters involving a lender and a borrower, when the legislature has provided for a specific mechanism for appropriate redressal. When this Court is approached with a prayer to permit the borrowers to clear the liability in instalments, the borrowers must prove bona fides. The non-compliance of the interim order indicates that the petitioner in this case has not shown any bona fides to enable this Court to permit her to clear the liability in instalments.

5. Therefore, I find no reason to grant the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, and the same will stand dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the measures taken by the secured creditor as provided under the SARFAESI Act, if so advised.

The writ petition is dismissed as above."

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned counsel for the respondents.

5. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel

for the respondents by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court

in LIC Housing Finance Ltd. v. Nagson and Company [2025

2025:KER:61331

KHC OnLine 7406], argued that there is no illegality in the

dismissal of the writ petition.

6. In Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore

and Another v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KHC 786], the Apex

Court held that the High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India can entertain a writ petition only under

exceptional circumstances and that it is a self-imposed restraint

by the High Court. The four exceptional circumstances such as,

where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the

provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the

fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to

invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has

been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice,

were re iterated in paragraph 6 of the said judgment by relying on

the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income

Tax and Others v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC

603].

7. This position was reiterated by the Apex Court in South

Indian Bank Ltd. (M/s.) v. Naveen Mathew Philip [2023 (4)

2025:KER:61331

KLT 29] and after discussing the various judgments on the point

as well as the circumstances in which the High Court can interfere

within matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act, held as under:

"Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi - judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Art.226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute". (Underline supplied)

8. In PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank

[2024 (3) KHC SN 3] the Apex Court held that it is more than a

2025:KER:61331

settled legal position of law that in matters arising out of RDB Act

and SARFAESI Act, the High Court should not entertain a petition

under Art.226 of the Constitution particularly when an alternative

statutory remedy is available.

9. In LIC Housing Finance Ltd. [2025 KHC OnLine

7406], 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 judiciously

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 look 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.

10. The learned counsel for the respondents would further

2025:KER:61331

submit that at present a One Time Settlement Scheme ('OTS' in

short) is available, and if the appellant is willing to avail the benefit

of the same, she can approach the Bank with necessary

application.

11. After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for

the appellant/writ petitioner sought permission to withdraw the

appeal, without prejudice to the right of the appellant to approach

the Debts Recovery Tribunal against the proceedings initiated by

the Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act or the Bank

with an application to grant the benefit of OTS.

In view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel

for the appellant, this writ appeal is dismissed as withdrawn,

however, without prejudice to the aforesaid right of the appellant,

if she is otherwise entitled.

SD/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

SD/-

sks                               MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE


                                                   2025:KER:61331



PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1            A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT CAME IN

THE KUWAIT EDITION OF MADHYAMAM DAILY IN THE MONTH OF APRIL 2017 ALONG WITH TRANSLATION