Kerala High Court
Sasidharan Pilla @Janardhanan ... vs Yes Bank Limited on 10 October, 2025
WP(C) NO. 37510 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:75354
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 18TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 37510 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SASIDHARAN PILLA @JANARDHANAN SASIDHARAN,
AGED 76 YEARS
RESIDING AT TR 19/2498, THIRUVATHRA,
ARANATT, TEMPLE ROAD, PALLURUTHY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682006
BY ADV SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH
RESPONDENTS:
1 YES BANK LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MG ROAD BRANCH,
KPCC JUNCTION, MG ROAD,ERNAKULAM SOUTH,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682011
2 YES BANK LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
YES BANK HOUSE, OFF WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY,
SANTACRUZ EAST, MUMBAI, PIN - 400055
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. P. POULOCHAN ANTONY, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 37510 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:75354
JUDGMENT
This is the third 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. 13769 of 2025, in which time was granted to comply with
the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam, in S.A.
No.506 of 2023, but the same was not complied with, which resulted in
the bank resuming the recovery proceedings.
3. The petitioner, thereafter, filed W.P.(C) No. 36558 of 2025 in
which the petitioner submitted that the entire liability could be cleared
off within three months. Accordingly, after recording the above, the
writ petition was disposed of on 06.10.2025, directing the petitioner to
bring the above proposal to the notice of the tribunal or to approach
the bank. However, it was made clear that since the order of the
tribunal was not complied with, the writ petition cannot be entertained
WP(C) NO. 37510 OF 2025
2025:KER:75354
or any relief granted. Notwithstanding Ext.P9 judgment, this writ
petition is again filed challenging the actions of the secured creditor
and is therefore on the very same cause of action, and resultantly, this
writ petition cannot be entertained.
4. 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
WP(C) NO. 37510 OF 2025
2025:KER:75354
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.
5. 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. 37510 OF 2025
2025:KER:75354
6. 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, if so advised.
Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
LU
WP(C) NO. 37510 OF 2025
2025:KER:75354
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37510/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT BANK DATED 24.07.2023
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN IA NO.
371 OF 2025 IN S.A NO.506/2023 DATED
31.01.2025
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO.
13769 OF 2025 DATED 08.04.2025 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OTS APPLICATION REQUEST
LETTER SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENT BANK BY
THE PETITIONER'S SON DATED 07.08.2025
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED
18.08.2025 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED
09.08.2025 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S WIFE
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE ISSUED BY THE
BORROWER AGAINST THE RESPONDENT BANK DATED
05.07.2025
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OTS TERMINATION LETTER
ISSUED TO THE BORROWER BY THE RESPONDENT BANK
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT WPC 36558 OF 2025
DATED 06.10.2025
EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OTS PROPOSAL SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BANK BY THE
PETITIONER'S SON DATED 07.10.2025
// True Copy // PA To Judge
