Kerala High Court
Maya V Nair vs State Bank Of India on 15 July, 2025
WP(C) NO. 25270 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:52068
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 25270 OF 2025
MC NO.48 OF OF 2025 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM/SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CYBER CRIME
PETITIONER/S:
MAYA V NAIR,
AGED 51 YEARS
M/S MAYI INDUSTRIES,SREEKRISHNA VILASAM HOUSE,
TC 22/691(OLD NO 9/1170-1), MANGALAM LANE,
SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695010
BY ADVS.
SMT.ABHIREMYA RAJ R B
SHRI.S.JAYANT
SHRI.GOVIND V.P.
SMT.GAYATHRI R.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE BANK OF INDIA,
CHIEF MANAGER STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH,
LMS COMPOUND, OPPOSITE TO MUSEUM WEST GATE,
VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
2 THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, SAR BRANCH, LMS
COMPOUND,OPPOSITE TO MUSEUM WEST GATE,VIKAS
BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
WP(C) NO. 25270 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:52068
SRI. JITHESH MENON, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 25270 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:52068
JUDGMENT
This is the second 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
W.P.(C) No.9630 of 2025, which was disposed of on 03.04.2025,
granting an instalment facility, which was not complied with. The
petitioner thereafter filed I.A.No.1/2025 seeking permission to sell
one of the properties offered as security. The said application was
also closed, relegating the petitioner to avail of the alternate
remedies. The present writ petition also challenges the actions of
the secured creditor against the defaulting borrower and is
therefore on the very same cause of action, and resultantly, this
writ petition cannot be entertained.
WP(C) NO. 25270 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:52068
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 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
WP(C) NO. 25270 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:52068
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 judicial propriety and fairness by ensuring
that parties do not approbate and reprobate or exploit procedural
plurality to unsettle concluded controversies.
WP(C) NO. 25270 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:52068
5. Given the above, this writ petition cannot be entertained
and the same is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the
petitioner to invoke the remedy provided under Section 17 of the
SARFAESI Act.
Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
DMR/-
WP(C) NO. 25270 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:52068
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25270/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED
17-02-2017
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF
ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE 2ND
RESPONDENT AND PETITIONER DATED 24-
09-2021
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ALL ACCOUNTS
BALANCE DETAILS OF MAYI INDUSTRIES AS
ON 14-11-2024
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH THEIR
COUNSEL DATED 05-10-2024
Exhibit P4(a) A TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH THEIR
COUNSEL DATED 07-10-2024
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY
PETITIONER AND HER HUSBAND TO 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 09.08.2024
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AN AMOUNT
OF RS. 15 LAKHS ON 22/10/2024
Exhibit P6(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR AN AMOUNT
OF RS. 40 LAKHS ON 24/10/2024
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29-11-2024
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 18-12-2024
Exhibit P9 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/02/2025 IN
MC NO.48/2025 PASSED BY THE CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE GIVEN BY
THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION DATED
27/02/2025
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO 9630 OF
2025 DATED 03-04-2025
WP(C) NO. 25270 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:52068
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN IA NO 1/2025 IN WP(C) NO
9630 OF 2025 DATED 20-06-2025
Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER
DATED 3/06/2025 GIVEN BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 1ST AND 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER
DATED 12/06/2025
Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THUCKALAY SRO
DATED 21/06/2025
Exhibit P16 THE TRANSLATION OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
CERTIFICATE
