Dr. Joji Mathew v. ICICI Bank Ltd.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 18TH POUSHA, 1945 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 35346 OF 2019 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` JOJI MATHEW, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.MATHEW, RESIDING AT CHAKKUPURAKKAL HOUSE, MALAPPURAM P.O., KAKKAOTH VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 325. ``` ``` BY ADV ``` ## **`K.SURESHBABU (KOCHIN)`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, ICICI BANK LTD.,RAPG, FIRST FLOOR, DELMA COMPLEX, SHORNUR ROAD, TRISSUR, PIN -680 001.`** - **`2 THE BRANCH MANGER, ICICI BANK LTD., THRISSUR BRANCH,`** ## **`BY ADV PRADEESH CHACKO`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).2331/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) Nos.35346 of 2019 and 2331 of 2023 : 2 : # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 18TH POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 2331 OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` DR. JOJI MATHEW, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW, CHAKKUPURAKKAL HOUSE, PERINTHALMANNA P.O, MALAPPURAM - 679322, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, REJI . C. J, AGED 50, S/O.JOSEPH. C.V, CHAKKUPURACKAKL HOUSE, PANDALLOOR HILLS. P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676 521. ``` ``` BY ADV ``` ## **`P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ`** ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` ICICI BANK LTD, CORPORATE OFFICE, ICICI BANK TOWERS, BANDRA- KURLA COMPLES, MUMBAI – 400 051, BRANCH AT ABAN ARCADE, PATHANAMTHITTA – 689 645, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. ``` ## **`BY ADV`** ## **`PRADEESH CHACKO`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).35346/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) Nos.35346 of 2019 and 2331 of 2023 : 3 : ## JUDGMENT Dated this the 8[th] day of January, 2024 [W.P.(C) Nos.35346 of 2019 and 2331 of 2023] W.P.(C) No.35346 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that initiation of further recovery measures by the respondents are illegal since the representation for regularisation of the loan account was not considered by the Bank Authority. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P2 representation. 2. W.P.(C) No.2331 of 2023 has been filed by the same petitioner seeking to declare that Ext.P1 is illegal and alternatively to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to pay the alleged amount due pursuant to Ext.P1 in 40 monthly instalments after giving due credit to the payments made by the petitioner. 3. It is evident that W.P.(C) No.35346 of 2019 has been filed when the Bank issued notice under Section 13(2) W.P.(C) Nos.35346 of 2019 and 2331 of 2023 : 4 : of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 4. W.P.(C) No.2331 of 2023 was filed when the Bank moved to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri invoking Section 14 of 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. 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 W.P.(C) Nos.35346 of 2019 and 2331 of 2023 : 5 : 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], 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 W.P.(C) Nos.35346 of 2019 and 2331 of 2023 : 6 : 226 of the Constitution of India shall be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances. 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 petitions are not maintainable and are dismissed. Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE AMR W.P.(C) Nos.35346 of 2019 and 2331 of 2023 : 7 : ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35346/2019`** ``` PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 31/07/2019, ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN TO THE BANK AUTHORITY, DATED 05/08/2019. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE SYMBOLIC POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 18/10/2019, ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. ``` W.P.(C) Nos.35346 of 2019 and 2331 of 2023 : 8 : ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2331/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT`** ``` Exhibit1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.2285 OF 2022 BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MANJERI. ```