Kerala High Court
Meenus Tourist Home vs The Federal Bank Ltd on 9 October, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
1
W.A.No.2371 of 2025
2025:KER:74951
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 17TH ASWINA, 1947
WA NO. 2371 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.09.2025 IN WP(C) NO.34342 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 MEENUS TOURIST HOME, DOOR NO. 434/4, OPPOSITE PRIVATE
BUS STAND, KALOOR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
M.D. DHANESH, PIN - 682017
2 M.D. DHANESH, AGED 62 YEARS
SON OF M.K. DAMODHARAN, METHANATH HOUSE, K. MURALI
ROAD, KADAVANTHARA P.O., ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682020
3 SADASIVAN M.P., AGED 82 YEARS
S/O PATHARI, MADATHIL HOUSE, MANAKAD P.O. THODUPUZHA,
IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN - 685608
BY ADVS.SRI.S.VINOD BHAT
KUM.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN
SMT.V.NAMITHA
SMT.GITANJALI SADAN PILLAI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., LCRD/ERNAKULAM DIVISION, GROUND
FLOOR, FEDERAL TOWERS, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM
REPRESENTED BY VICE PRESIDENT, PIN - 682031
2 AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.,
LCRD/ERNAKULAM DIVISION, GROUND FLOOR, FEDERAL TOWERS,
MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2
W.A.No.2371 of 2025
2025:KER:74951
3 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., M.G. ROAD SOUTH BRANCH,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682016
BY ADVS. SHRI.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY
SHRI.SREEJITH K.
SHRI. G.VISWANATHAN
SMT.ASWNI M.P.
SHRI.S.NIKHIL RAJEEV
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.A.No.2371 of 2025
2025:KER:74951
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The 1st appellant is a partnership firm and appellants 2 and
3 are its partners. They filed W.P.(C)No.34342 of 2025, invoking
the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1
demand notice dated 25.10.2019 and Ext.P4 communication
dated 29.08.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent Authorised
Officer of the 1st respondent Bank under the provisions of
Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(SARFAESI Act); a writ of mandamus commanding the
respondents to accept such amount in full and final satisfaction
of the amounts due from them in loan Account
Nos.11535600004487 and 11537600052029 as may be
determined by this Court, after waiving interest and penal
interest, the accrual of which is attributable to the respondents.
2. On 19.09.2025, when the writ petition came up for
admission, the learned Single Judge closed the same, without
prejudice to the right of the petitioners to avail the statutory
remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
2025:KER:74951
Paragraph 2 and also the last paragraph of the judgment dated
19.09.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.34342 of
2025 read thus;
"2. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent
Bank submits that the account was termed NPA in the
year 2019. The remedy of the petitioners is to challenge
the actions of the secured creditor, invoking Section 17
of the SARFAESI Act.
Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to avail
of the same, and without prejudice to any of the
contentions, the writ petition is closed."
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.09.2025 of the
learned Single Judge, the appellants-petitioners are before this
Court in this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section
5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-
petitioners and also the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The issue that requires consideration in this writ
appeal is as to whether any interference is warranted in the
judgment dated 19.09.2025 of the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C)No.34342 of 2025.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners
would contend that the learned Single Judge committed a grave
2025:KER:74951
error in declining the reliefs sought for in W.P.(C)No.34342 of
2025. The learned Single Judge ought to have noticed that the
alternate remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act
by approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal is ineffective and
inadequate. The learned counsel would place reliance on the
decision of the Apex Court in Central Bank of India v.
Ravindra [(2002) 1 SCC 367].
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondents would submit that in view of the law laid down by
the Apex Court, in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the appellant-petitioner cannot seek
interference of this Court on the proceedings initiated by the
secured creditor under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.
Therefore, no interference in the judgment dated 19.09.2025 of
the learned Single Judge is warranted.
7. In South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew
Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311], in the context of the challenge
made against the notices issued under Section 13(4) of the
SARFAESI Act, the Apex Court reiterated the settled position of
law on the interference of the High Court invoking Article 226 of
2025:KER:74951
the Constitution of India in commercial matters, where an
effective and efficacious alternative forum has been constituted
through a statute. In the said decision, the Apex Court took
judicial notice of the fact that certain High Courts continue to
interfere in such matters, leading to a regular supply of cases
before the Apex Court. The Apex Court reiterated that a writ
of certiorari is to be issued over a decision when the court finds
that the process does not conform to the law or the statute. In
other words, courts are not expected to substitute themselves
with the decision-making authority while finding fault with the
process along with the reasons assigned. Such a writ is not
expected to be issued to remedy all violations. When a Tribunal
is constituted, it is expected to go into the issues of fact and law,
including a statutory violation. A question as to whether such a
violation would be over a mandatory prescription as against a
discretionary one is primarily within the domain of the Tribunal.
The issues governing waiver, acquiescence and estoppel are also
primarily within the domain of the Tribunal. The object and
reasons behind the SARFAESI Act are very clear as observed
in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [(2004) 4 SCC
2025:KER:74951
311]. While it facilitates a faster and smoother mode of
recovery sans any interference from the court, it does provide a
fair mechanism in the form of the Tribunal being manned by a
legally trained mind. The Tribunal is clothed with a wide range of
powers to set aside an illegal order, and thereafter, grant
consequential reliefs, including repossession and payment of
compensation and costs. Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Actgives
an expansive meaning to the expression 'any person', who could
approach the Tribunal.
8. In Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311]
the Apex Court noticed that, in matters under the SARFAESI Act,
approaching the High Court for the consideration of an offer by
the borrower is also frowned upon by the Apex Court. A writ of
mandamus is a prerogative writ. The court cannot exercise the
said power in the absence of any legal right. More
circumspection is required in a financial transaction, particularly
when one of the parties would not come within the purview of
Article 12 of the Constitution of India. When a statute prescribes
a particular mode, an attempt to circumvent that mode shall not
be encouraged by a writ court. A litigant cannot avoid the non-
2025:KER:74951
compliance of approaching the Tribunal, which requires the
prescription of fees, and use the constitutional remedy as an
alternative. In paragraph 17 of the decision, the Apex Court
reiterated the position of law regarding the interference of the
High Courts in matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act by
quoting its earlier decisions in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar
Thomas [(2003) 10 SCC 733], United Bank of India v.
Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110], State Bank of
Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [(2018) 3 SCC 85], Phoenix
ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir [(2022) 5
SCC 345] and Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu
[(2023) 2 SCC 168] wherein the said practice has been
deprecated while requesting the High Courts not to entertain
such cases. In paragraph 18 of the said decision, the Apex Court
observed 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
2025:KER:74951
mechanism for appropriate redressal.
9. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that the
reasoning of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment
dated 19.09.2025 for not entertaining W.P.(C)No.34342 of 2025
in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the constitution of India, in view of the statutory
remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, is
neither perverse nor patently illegal, warranting an interference
in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction under Section 5(i) of the
Kerala High Court Act.
10. In the result, this writ appeal fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed; however, leaving open the legal
contentions raised by the appellants relying on the decision of
the Apex Court in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra [(2002)
1 SCC 367].
Based on the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the appellants-petitioners, we make it clear that the dismissal
of this writ appeal will not stand in the way of the appellants
approaching the Bank to avail the benefit of One Time
2025:KER:74951
Settlement (OTS), after complying with the requirements of OTS
Scheme.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
AV
