AL Noor Hospitals Private Limited v Union of India and Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- N. Nagareesh
- Judgment Date
- 2024-02-29
- Court Decision / Holding
- The writ petition is not maintainable; it is dismissed. The aggrieved party has an effective and efficacious remedy before the Tribunal constituted under the SARFAESI Act.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition dismissed.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- AL Noor Hospitals Private Limited
- Thaithottathil Abdul Salam
Respondents
- Union of India, Ministry of Finance Department of Financial Services
- Reserve Bank of India
- Perinthalmanna Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited
- Authorized Officer, Perinthalmanna Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Shaji Chirayath
- • Jiji M. Varkey
- • M.K. Safeela Beevi
- • Savitha Ganapathiyatan
- • M. Shajahan
Counsels for Respondents
- • Chandini G. Nair
- • Jayasree K.P.
- • John Joseph
Case Synopsis & Summary
AL Noor Hospitals Private Limited challenged Ext.P3 notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), seeking to stall the proceedings that aim to take over and sell the secured asset. The petitioners contend Ext.P3 is hit by Section 26D and barred by limitation under Section 36 of the SARFAESI Act, and pray for certiorari to quash Ext.P8, the CJM Manjeri order in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.3335 of 2022. The relief sought includes declarations that Ext.P3 is invalid and that the order Ext.P8 should be set aside, with a broader plea for any other appropriate relief. The petition relies on the principle that writs should not ordinarily lie against SARFAESI actions, emphasizing statutory remedies and the availability of efficacious redressal under the Act. The respondents and their counsel resist, arguing that Article 226 writ petitions are not maintainable against SARFAESI proceedings because the statute provides a specific, effective remedy before the Tribunal established under SARFAESI, a position reinforced by established Supreme Court and High Court decisions. The court reflects on post-2010 jurisprudence, including Satyawati Tondon and subsequent Kerala decisions, and ultimately dismisses the petition as not maintainable, reaffirming that the aggrieved party should pursue the statutory remedy rather than a writ petition.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- No writ would lie against SARFAESI proceedings
- Efficacious alternate remedy doctrine
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petition contends Ext.P3 under Section 13(2) is invalid as it contravenes Sections 26D and 36 of the SARFAESI Act and that Ext.P3 is barred by limitation; Ext.P8 (CJM order) is sought to be quashed. The petition urges the court to intervene on grounds of procedural impropriety in the securitisation process and on the premise that the Act contemplates an efficacious remedy before the Tribunal rather than a writ petition; it further relies on the general principle that writs should not normally lie against SARFAESI actions.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents submit that writ petitions under SARFAESI are not maintainable, as the Act provides a statutory, efficacious remedy before the Tribunal; Article 226 jurisdiction should be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances; they rely on established judgments including United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others, Mathew K.C., Anilkumar v. SBI, South Indian Bank v. Naveen Mathew Philip, and Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India to support non-maintainability of the writ and the primacy of the Tribunal mechanism.
Cited Precedents (5)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others | (2010) 8 SCC 110 | Positive | The Apex Court held that no writ petition shall be entertained against SARFAESI proceedings due to the existence of an efficacious alternate remedy. |
| Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. | 2018 (1) KLT 784 | Positive | Apex Court reiterated that no writ petition would lie against SARFAESI proceedings in view of the statutory remedy. |
| Anilkumar v. State Bank of India | 2020 (2) KLT 756 | Positive | Division Bench declined Article 226 challenge against SARFAESI proceedings, aligning with the Satyawati Tondon doctrine. |
| South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen Mathew Philip | 2023 (4) KLT 29 | Positive | Apex Court held Article 226 should be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances where redressal is not available under statute. |
| Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and others | W.P.(C) No.30803/2023 | Positive | Court held writs against SARFAESI proceedings not maintainable given effective Tribunal remedy. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 AL Noor Hospitals Private Limited v Union of India and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.