Kerala High Court
Vincent Raphael vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank on 21 October, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
2025:KER:77977
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 29TH ASWINA, 1947
WA NO. 2499 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.09.2025 IN W.P.(C) NO.34771
OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
VINCENT RAPHAEL, AGED 53 YEARS
S/O RAPHAEL, MOOTHEDAN HOUSE, AAYATHUPADY,
KOOVAPADI P.O, PERUMBAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683542
BY ADV SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
PERUMBAVOOR BRANCH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
(FORMERLY DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK),
REPRESENTED BY MANAGER, PIN - 683542
2 AUTHORISED OFFICER,
KERALA STATE O-OPERATIVE BANK,
PERUMBAVOOR BRANCH,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683542
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. K. AMMINIKUTTY, SC ,
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.2499 of 2025 2
2025:KER:77977
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellant-petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.34771 of 2025
invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to
quash Ext.P6 proceedings dated 09.06.2025 of the 1st respondent
Kerala State Co-operative Bank, Perumbavoor Branch, whereby,
his request in Ext.P1 representation dated 25.11.2024 for One
Time Settlement stands rejected, as the said proceedings is null
and void; a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to
dispose of Ext.P1 representation dated 25.11.2024 made by the
petitioner for One Time Settlement of the loan account, within a
reasonable time, as fixed by this Court, as per the scheme
envisaged in Ext.P7 Navakeraleeyam One Time Settlement
Scheme for clearing the arrears in loan accounts in Primary Co-
operative Societies/Co-operative Banks under the jurisdiction of
the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, or such other One Time
Settlement scheme; and a declaration that the petitioner is
entitled for the benefit of the One Time Settlement Scheme, as
envisaged in Ext.P7.
2. The appellant-petitioner, who availed a cash credit
2025:KER:77977
facility for Rs.30 lakhs in the year 2018 from Ernakulam District
Co-operative Bank (presently Kerala State Co-operative Bank),
defaulted repayment, which had resulted in the loan account being
classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA), in the year 2020 and
initiation of proceedings under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Section 13(4) notice was
issued on 16.02.2022. In M.C.No.792 of 2024 filed by the Bank
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, invoking the
provisions under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, an Advocate
Commissioner was appointed.
3. The appellant-petitioner had earlier approached this
Court in W.P.(C)No.41213 of 2024, seeking consideration of Ext.P1
representation dated 25.11.2024 for one time settlement. That
writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment dated
21.11.2024, whereby the Bank was directed to consider the
proposal, as per the existing norms. Thereafter, the petitioner filed
W.P.(C)No.16420 of 2025, again for consideration of Ext.P1
representation and for other consequential reliefs. That writ
petition was dismissed by Ext.P5 judgment dated 08.09.2025.
Paragraphs 5, 6 and also the last paragraph of that judgment read
2025:KER:77977
thus;
"5. 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
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 him to clear the liability in instalments.
6. 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."
It is, thereafter, that the Bank considered the proposal made by
the petitioner in Ext.P1 representation dated 25.11.2024, as
evident from Ext.P6 proceedings dated 09.06.2025. As can be
seen from Ext.P6 proceedings, the total liability of the petitioner
2025:KER:77977
in respect of the cash credit facility, as on 31.05.2025 comes to
Rs.65,09,023.67/-. No one time settlement scheme is currently in
force. In the personal hearing conducted on 09.06.2025, the
petitioner requested settlement of the entire dues for a sum of
Rs.31 lakhs, for which he sought six months' time. Since the said
proposal was not acceptable, the Bank rejected the same, as
evidenced by Ext.P6 proceedings, which was under challenge in
W.P.(C)No.34771 of 2025. The learned Single Judge, by the
judgment dated 25.09.2025, dismissed the writ petition, without
prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke the provisions
under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, if so advised. Paragraphs
2, 3 and also the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;
"2. W.P.(C) No.16420 of 2025 was dismissed on 08.09.2025
for not complying with the interim order passed by this
Court on 10.07.2025, which directed the petitioner to pay
an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. This Court had also extended
the time for making the payment by order in I.A.No.3 of
2025 dated 11.08.2025, but the same was also not complied
with. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, without
prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the
measures taken as provided under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, if so advised.
3. Without complying with the said direction, the petitioner
2025:KER:77977
has again filed this writ petition for quashing Ext.P6, by
which the Bank had rejected the proposal submitted by the
petitioner for a One Time Settlement. The said decision of
the Bank cannot be challenged by the petitioner as this
Court cannot direct the granting of an OTS settlement
facility on petitioner's terms.
The writ petition, therefore, cannot be entertained and the
same is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the
petitioner to invoke Section 17 of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, if so advised."
4. Challenging the judgment dated 25.09.2025 of the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.34771 of 2025, the appellant-
petitioner is before this Court in this writ appeal invoking the
provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Co-
operative Bank, for the respondents.
6 The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner would
submit that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is one
rendered without considering the legal and factual contentions
raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.34771 of 2025. In view of
the specific direction contained in Ext.P2 judgment of this Court
dated 21.11.2024 in W.P.(C)No.41213 of 2024, the learned Single
2025:KER:77977
Judge ought to have interfered with Ext.P6 proceedings.
7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for
Kerala State Co-operative Bank, for the respondents would submit
that no One Time Settlement Scheme was in force, as on
09.06.2025, the date of Ext.P6 proceedings. Ext.P7
Navakeraleeyam One Time Settlement Scheme for clearing the
arrears in loan accounts in Primary Co-operative Societies/Co-
operative Banks under the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Co-
operative Societies was in force only up to 31.03.2025. During the
currency of that scheme, the appellant has not chosen to approach
the Bank. As stated in Ext.P6 proceedings, the proposal made by
the appellant in Ext.P1 representation dated 25.11.2024 was not
acceptable, since the appellant wants to settle the entire dues on
payment of an amount of Rs.31 lakhs, within a period of six
months, as against the liability of Rs.65,09,023.67, as on
31.05.2025.
8. 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:77977
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 311]. While
it facilitates a faster and smoother mode of recovery sans any
2025:KER:77977
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 Act gives an expansive meaning to
the expression 'any person', who could approach the Tribunal.
9. 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-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
2025:KER:77977
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 mechanism for
appropriate redressal.
10. In State Bank of India v. Arvindra Electronics Pvt.
Ltd. [(2023) 1 SCC 540] - judgment dated 04.11.2022 in Civil
Appeal No.6954 of 2022 - the Apex Court reiterated the law laid
down in Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited v. Meenal
2025:KER:77977
Agarwal [(2023) 2 SCC 805] - judgment dated 15.12.2021 in
Civil Appeal No.7411 of 2021 - that no writ of mandamus can be
issued by the High Court in exercise of the powers under Article
226 of the Constitution of India directing a financial institution/
bank to positively grant the benefit of One Time Settlement (OTS)
to a borrower; the grant of benefit under the OTS is always subject
to eligibility criteria mentioned under the OTS scheme and
guidelines issued from time to time. Such a decision should be left
to the commercial wisdom of the bank, whose amount is involved,
and it is always to be presumed that financial institution/bank shall
take a prudent decision whether to grant benefit or not under the
OTS scheme. Therefore, the High Court materially erred and
exceeded in its jurisdiction in issuing a writ of mandamus directing
the bank to positively consider/grant the benefit of OTS to the
borrower.
11. In Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [(2023) 1 SCC
540] the Apex Court held that directing the bank to reschedule
the payment under OTS would tantamount to modification of the
contract, which can be done by mutual consent under Section 62
of the Contract Act, 1872. Further, rescheduling the payment
under OTS and granting extension of time would tantamount to
2025:KER:77977
rewriting the contract, which is not permissible while exercising
the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. In the instant case, the proposal made by the appellant
in Ext.P1 representation dated 25.11.2024 is for settlement of the
entire dues on payment of a sum of Rs.31 lakhs, for which he
requires a period of six months. The appellant maintained the said
stand when the said proposal was considered in the hearing held
on 09.06.2025, which is evident from Ext.P6 proceedings. The
total liability of the appellant in the cash credit facility availed from
the 1st respondent Bank was Rs.65,09,023.67, as on 31.05.2025.
Even going by the provisions contained in Ext.P7 Navakeraleeyam
One Time Settlement Scheme for clearing the arrears in loan
accounts in Primary Co-operative Societies/Co-operative Banks
under the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
the appellant is not entitled for the closure of cash credit facility
on payment of a sum of Rs.31 lakhs, even during the currency of
the said scheme, which was in force up to 31.03.2025. Viewed in
the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Bijnor Urban
Cooperative Bank Limited v. Meenal Agarwal [(2023) 2 SCC
805], reiterated in Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [(2023) 1
SCC 540], the appellant has no legal right for a favourable
2025:KER:77977
consideration of the request for One Time Settlement made in
Ext.P1 representation, since his request was for settlement of the
entire dues amounting to Rs.65,09,023.67, on payment of a sum
of Rs.31 lakhs, within a period of six months. Therefore, the
appellant cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of
certiorari to quash Ext.P6 proceedings of the Bank rejecting his
request for One Time Settlement.
13. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in
Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311], the appellant
cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking interference with
the proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank under the
provisions of the SARFAESI Act against the secured asset.
Therefore, in W.P.(C)No.34771 of 2025 filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the appellant cannot seek any order
against his dispossession from the secured asset based on the
orders obtained by the secured creditor in the proceedings under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
14. In such circumstances, the appellant-petitioner is not
entitled to any of the relief sought for in the writ petition.
2025:KER:77977
Therefore, the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with in
not entertaining the writ petition, by the judgment dated
25.09.2025; however, without prejudice to the right of the
appellant-petitioner to invoke the statutory remedy provided
under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
In the result, this writ appeal fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MSA
