High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-02-27Writ petition dismissed.

Abdul Latheef C v. The Authorised Officer, ICICI Bank Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.4540 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2024-02-27
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed; no writ lies against SARFAESI proceedings where efficacious statutory remedies exist; petition not maintainable.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdul Latheef C

Respondents

The Authorised Officer, ICICI Bank Ltd. (Corporate Office, Bandra-Kurla Complex)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Rakhy Baby

Counsels for Respondents

• Lal K Joseph
• P.Muraleedharan (Thuravoor)
• T. A. Luxy (L-78)
• Suresh Sukumar
• Anzil Salim Sanjay Sellen
• Akash George

Case Synopsis & Summary

Abdul Latheef C, the petitioner, approached the Kerala High Court challenging proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) initiated by ICICI Bank. The petitioner seeks certiorari or other appropriate writs to call for records leading to Ext P2 and to set aside that notice, mandamus to permit paying off loan arrears in a reasonable time, and to regularise the account, as well as to keep in abeyance all coercive measures against the mortgaged property. He asserts that the outstanding liability has been misrepresented and notes a Court direction requiring remittance of ₹15 lakhs within two weeks. The matter concerns two loan accounts with a total liability claimed by the bank as ₹8,54,36,164.81. The respondents contend that SARFAESI proceedings are beyond the reach of writ jurisdiction and insist on the statutory remedies, citing United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and later Kerala and Supreme Court authorities. The court surveys the established law: writs under Article 226 are not available against SARFAESI actions when an efficacious remedy exists. Relying on the Apex Court and this Court’s precedents, the petition is held not maintainable and dismissed, underscoring the primacy of the SARFAESI mechanism and the availability of Tribunal redressal. The decision reaffirms that extraordinary jurisdiction is not invoked where a specific statutory remedy exists.

Provisions of Law Cited

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002Sections 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 read with Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (Rule 8(1))

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

No writ shall lie against proceedings under the SARFAESI Act
Efficacious and effective statutory remedy under SARFAESI Act
Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act has competence to adjudicate issues of fact and law, including statutory violations
Article 226 powers should be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances when legislature provides a specific mechanism for redressal
Petitioner has an effective and efficacious remedy before the Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the notice Ext P2 should be examined and set aside; he seeks permission to discharge loan arrears in a reasonable timeframe and to regularise the account, including staying all coercive steps against the mortgaged asset. He maintains the earlier remittance direction of ₹15 lakhs was not properly considered and that a writ of certiorari or mandamus should shield him from coercive actions while avenues for settlement remain open under the SARFAESI framework. He argues for jurisdictional review of the proceedings and asserts that the bank’s demands are excessive and not supported by the settlement terms; the remedy under the SARFAESI scheme must be explored before invoking writ jurisdiction.

Contentions of Respondents

The bank submits that SARFAESI proceedings are immune from writ jurisdiction and that there is a statutory remedy to challenge or contest such actions. It is stated that the petitioner owes ₹8,54,36,164.81 across two loan accounts and has not complied with the court-ordered remittance of ₹15 lakhs. The respondents rely on established jurisprudence that writ petitions cannot challenge SARFAESI actions where an efficacious remedy exists, citing United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and other authorities. They emphasize that the petition seeks to derail the statutory enforcement process and that Article 226 should not override the statutory scheme.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others	2010 (8) SCC 110	Positive	Established principle that writs are not maintainable against SARFAESI proceedings due to efficacious statutory remedy.
Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C.	2018 (1) KLT 784	Positive	Reiterated that no writ petition lies against SARFAESI proceedings given statutory remedy.
Anilkumar v. State Bank of India	2020 (2) KLT 756	Positive	Division Bench declined to exercise Article 226 against SARFAESI proceedings; supports non-maintainability.
South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen Mathew Philip	2023 (4) KLT 29	Positive	SC/HC held Article 226 should be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances where statute provides mechanism for redress.
Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and others	W.P.(C) No.30803/2023	Positive	Writ challenging SARFAESI proceedings not maintainable; remedy before Tribunal is efficacious.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abdul Latheef C v. The Authorised Officer, ICICI Bank Ltd. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **TUESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 4540 OF 2024** **PETITIONER:** **ABDUL LATHEEF C AGED 39 YEARS, S/O MANNAMPARAMBATH MUHAMMED, CHALUMPATTIL, KAYALAM PO, MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE KERALA, PIN – 673662.** **BY ADV RAKHY BABY** **RESPONDENT:** **THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, M/S ICICI BANK LTD CORPORATE OFFICE AT ICICI TOWERS, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E) MUMBAI 400051 HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT KOZHIKODE AND ZONAL OFFICE AT NO.1 CENOTAPH ROAD, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, RAJESH IYER, PIN – 600018.** **BY ADVS. LAL K JOSEPH P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR) T.A.LUXY(L-78) SURESH SUKUMAR ANZIL SALIM SANJAY SELLEN AKASH GEORGE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** :2: ## **W.P.(C) No.4540 of 2024** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## Dated this the 27[th] day of February, 2024 ## The petitioner, who has taken financial advance from ## the ICICI Bank Limited, has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- ''i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for records leading to the issuance of Ext.P2 notice and set aside the same. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or orders directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to pay off the loan arrears in reasonable time and to regularise the account. iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to respondent to keep in abeyance all coercive proceedings against the property mortgaged. iv) Grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct in the facts and circumstances of the case.'' ## 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, the petitioner submitted that to the knowledge of the petitioner, ## **W.P.(C) No.4540 of 2024** **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the outstanding amount would be around ₹1,08,00,000/-. This Court, therefore, directed the petitioner to remit an amount of ₹15 lakhs within a period of two weeks. 3. Standing Counsel representing the Bank submits that the total outstanding liability payable by the petitioner is ₹8,54,36,164.81 in two loan accounts and that the petitioner has not remitted ₹15 lakhs as directed by this Court. 4. A perusal of the pleadings and hearing of the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner would indicate that the petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the respondents under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. ## **W.P.(C) No.4540 of 2024** **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 6. The grievance of the petitioner is relating to the proceedings initiated by the respondents under Sections 13 and 14 of the Securitisation Act and the attempt of the respondents to take over and sell the secured asset provided by the petitioner. 7. It is settled law that no writ would lie against the proceedings initiated by a financial institution under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. In **United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others** [(2010) 8 SCC 110], the Hon’ble Apex Court declared that no writ petition shall be entertained against the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act at the instance of a defaulter since the statute provides for an efficacious alternate remedy. 8. In the judgment in **Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C.** [2018 (1) KLT 784] _,_ ## **W.P.(C) No.4540 of 2024** **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that no writ petition would lie against the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act in view of the statutory remedy available under the said Act. 9. Following the judgment in **Satyawati Tondon** (supra), a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in **Anilkumar v. State Bank of India** [2020 (2) KLT 756] declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation Act. 10. In **South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen Mathew Philip** [2023 (4) KLT 29], the Apex Court held that when the legislature has provided a specific mechanism for appropriate redressal, the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances. ## **W.P.(C) No.4540 of 2024** **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 11. In **Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and others** (W.P.(C) No.30803/2023), this Court held that writ petition challenging any proceedings under the Securitisation Act is not maintainable since the aggrieved person has an effective and efficacious remedy before the Tribunal constituted under the Act which is competent to adjudicate the issues of fact and law, including statutory violations. In the light of the categorical pronouncements of law made by the Apex Court and by this Court, the above writ petition is not maintainable and it is dismissed. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH** **JUDGE** ams ## **W.P.(C) No.4540 of 2024** :7: ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4540/2024** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 19.01.2021 BY THE PETITIONER** **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER NOTICE DATED 23.12.2023** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** **Exhibit R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF PERSONAL GUARANTEE DATED 08/07/2020 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT BY THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM INCLUDING THE PETITIONER** **Exhibit R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CREDIT ARRANGEMENT LETTER DATED 09.06.2020 NUMBERED CAL506947319481** **Exhibit R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP AUTHORITY LETTER AND CONFIRMATION DATED 25/06/2020 SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER, MR.ABDUL KAREEM AND MS.SAJITHA K.** **Exhibit R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP AUTHORITY LETTER AND CONFIRMATION DATED 26/08/2020 SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER, MR.ABDUL KAREEM AND MS.SAJITHA K** **Exhibit R1(e) RELEVANT PAGE OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE LOAN ACCOUNT NO.117251000003 AS ON 11.02.2024** **Exhibit R1(f) THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE LOAN ACCOUNT NO. 117251000004 AS ON** :8: ## **W.P.(C) No.4540 of 2024** **11.02.2024** **Exhibit R1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE RECALL NOTICE DATED 28.11.2022** - **Exhibit R1(h) THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT, 2002 DATED 20.02.2023** - **Exhibit R1(i) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF NOTICE ON 25.02.2023** **Exhibit R1(j)** - **THE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 13(4) OF THE SARFAESI ACT, 2002 READ WITH RULE 8(1) OF THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES 2002 DATED 25.05.2023** - **Exhibit R1(k) TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS DATED 26.05.2023 EVIDENCING DISPATCH** - **Exhibit R1(l) THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF THE ABOVE NOTICE BY THE PETITIONER** **Exhibit R1(m)** - **THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATIONS DATED 30.05.2023 ANNOUNCING THE SYMBOLIC POSSESSION VIDE NOTICE**