Kerala High Court
Benny Samuel vs The People’S Urban Co-Operative Bank ... on 14 August, 2025
WP(C) NO. 30076 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:61335
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 30076 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
BENNY SAMUEL
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. GHEEVARGHESE SAMUEL,
THOPPIL HOUSE, FLAT NO. B2,
SKY HEIGHTS, ROMA BUILDERS,
THRIKAKKARA NORTH,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682022
BY ADV SMT.K.ANILA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE PEOPLE'S URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
RB NO. 760, HEAD OFFICE, TRIPUNITHURA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 682001
2 THE MANAGER
PEOPLE'S URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
TRIPUNITHURA PO, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 30076 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:61335
JUDGMENT
Dated the 14th day of August 2025
This is the 4th round of litigation preferred by the petitioner
challenging the measures taken by the respondent bank, the secured
creditor, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short,
the 'SARFAESI Act).
2. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this court by filing
WP(C) No.24641 of 2023, which resulted in Ext.P2 judgment dated
27.07.2023, wherein the petitioner was granted an instalment facility
by this court. Admittedly, the conditions therein were not complied
with. Thereafter, the guarantor of the same loan filed W.P.(C) No.24441
of 2024, which resulted in Ext.P3 judgment dated 23.07.2024, permitting
him to approach the bank for availing the one-time settlement scheme.
Again, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 1904 of 2025, in which an interim
order was passed on 23.01.2025, which was also not complied with. The
petitioner then filed W.P.(C) No.1904 of 2025 in which Ext.P7 judgment
WP(C) NO. 30076 OF 2025
2025:KER:61335
was passed on 05.03.2025 directing that the coercive proceedings
against the petitioner shall stand deferred till 31.3.2025 and further
directing the petitioner to approach the bank for OTS facility. This writ
petition is also on the same cause of action, namely, challenging the
actions of the secured creditor and therefore cannot be entertained.
3. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Celir LLP v. Sumati
Prasad Bafna and Ors. (MANU/SC/1343/2024), which relied on the
decisions in State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain [(1977) 2 SCC 806], Devilal
Modi v. Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam and Ors [AIR 1965 SC 1150], and the
English decision in Greenhalgh v. Mallard [(1947) All ER 255 at p.257],
to hold that where the same set of facts give rise to multiple causes of
action, a litigant cannot be permitted to agitate one cause in one
proceeding and reserve the other for future litigation. Such
fragmentation aggravates the burden of litigation and is impermissible
in law. The Court reiterated that all claims and grounds of defence or
attack which could and ought to have been raised in earlier
proceedings are barred from being re-agitated subsequently. This rule
WP(C) NO. 30076 OF 2025
2025:KER:61335
stems from the Henderson Principle, which, as a corollary of
constructive res judicata embodied in Explanation VII to Section 11
CPC, mandates that a party must bring forward the entirety of its case
in one proceeding and not in a piecemeal or selective manner. Courts
must examine whether a matter could and should have been raised
earlier, taking into account the scope of the earlier proceedings and
their nexus to the controversy at hand.
4. If the subject matter or seminal issues in a later proceeding
are substantially similar or connected to those already adjudicated, the
subsequent proceeding amounts to relitigation. Once a cause of action
has been judicially determined, all issues fundamental to that cause are
deemed to have been conclusively decided, and attempts to revisit any
part of it -- even through formal distinctions in forums or pleadings --
fall foul of the principle. Moreover, any plea or issue that was raised
earlier and then abandoned is deemed waived and cannot be
resurrected. The overarching object is to protect the finality of
adjudications, discourage strategic or delayed litigation, and uphold
WP(C) NO. 30076 OF 2025
2025:KER:61335
judicial propriety and fairness by ensuring that parties do not
approbate and reprobate or exploit procedural plurality to unsettle
concluded controversies.
The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
LU
WP(C) NO. 30076 OF 2025
2025:KER:61335
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30076/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13/7/2023
ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN M.C.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/7/2023
THUS PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C).
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/7/2024
THUS PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C).
NO. 24441 OF 2024
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING REF. NO.
1524/2024-25 DATED 26/11/2024 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
23/1/2025 THUS PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN W.P.(C). NO. 1904 OF 2025
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT
DATED 4/2/2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK
EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF RS. 5,00,000/-
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5/3/2025
THUS PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C).
NO. 1904 OF 2025
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
3/4/2025 THUS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BANK
// True Copy // PA To Judge
