High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition dismissed.
Jagadeesan P.A. and others v. The Manager, Ottapalam Co-operative Urban Bank Limited
Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) No.7910/2023
Neutral Citation:/
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- N. Nagareesh
- Judgment Date
- 2024-03-11
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition dismissed. The court holds that no writ lies against SARFAESI proceedings where an efficacious remedy exists, and reliance is placed on established case law.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition dismissed.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Jagadeesan P.A.
- Kamalakshy (W/o late Jagadeesan)
- Udayakumar P.J.
- Sajeesh Kumar P.J.
- Suresh Kumar P.J.
- Subhash P.J.
Respondents
- The Manager, The Ottapalam Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited No. F 1647, Head Office, Main Road, Ottapalam, Palakkad District, PIN 679101
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • C.K. Ramakrishnan
Counsels for Respondents
- • Vinod Madhavan
- • M.V. Bose
- • Biju Varghese Erumala
- • Saniya C.V.
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition challenges a SARFAESI notice issued under Section 13(2) and the ensuing proceedings by The Ottapalam Co-operative Urban Bank Limited against the first petitioner, who borrowed ₹15 lakhs for starting a flour mill, with an overdraft facility. After default, the Bank demanded repayment, issued Ext.P2 under Section 13(2) alleging excess due, and the petitioner filed Ext.P4 objecting to the demand. The 1st petitioner later offered a One Time Settlement (Ext.P6) but contends the bank ignored the offer and invoked Section 14, with Advocate Commissioner’s Ext.P5 notice following. Additional petitioners 2–6 were impleaded as legal heirs after the 1st petitioner’s death. The respondent-bank contends that ₹33,20,685 is outstanding on a mortgage of 36.48 cents of land, and that the writ petition is not maintainable since SARFAESI provides an efficacious remedy. The petition asserts procedural missteps and excess demands; the Bank defends the coercive steps as permissible under SARFAESI. The Court relies on Supreme Court and Kerala decisions—Satyawati Tondon; Mathew K.C.; Anilkumar; Naveen Mathew Philip; Jayakrishnan A.—to hold that no writ lies against SARFAESI proceedings where an adequate remedy exists, and dismisses the petition as not maintainable, emphasizing the primacy of statutory remedy and limited judicial intervention.
Provisions of Law Cited
Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act)
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- No writ lies against SARFAESI proceedings due to efficacious alternate remedy.
- Where a specific statutory remedy is provided, Article 226 relief is available only in extraordinary circumstances.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners challenge the 13(2) notice as excessive and improper, allege that the Bank ignored their Ext.P4 objection and Ext.P6 One Time Settlement offer, and contend SARFAESI proceedings should not be coercive or bypass statutorily provided relief. They rely on precedents emphasizing the availability of an efficacious remedy under SARFAESI and the limited scope of writ jurisdiction in such matters.
Contentions of Respondents
The Bank defends the action as permissible under SARFAESI, asserting a loan of ₹15 lakhs with a mortgage over land, an outstanding sum of ₹33,20,685, and the Bank’s readiness to proceed under the Act; they argue the writ petition is not maintainable given the statutory scheme and the established case law.
Cited Precedents (5)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others | [(2010) 8 SCC 110] | Positive | Supports the proposition that writs are not entertained against SARFAESI proceedings due to the availability of an efficacious remedy. |
| Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. | [2018 (1) KLT 784] | Positive | Reiterates no writ petition would lie against SARFAESI proceedings given statutory remedy. |
| Anilkumar v. State Bank of India | [2020 (2) KLT 756] | Positive | Division Bench followed the above line, declining Article 226 interference in SARFAESI matters. |
| South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen Mathew Philip | [2023 (4) KLT 29] | Positive | Apex Court principle that Article 226 relief is available only in extraordinary circumstances when a specific remedy exists. |
| Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and others | (W.P.(C) No.30803/2023) | Positive | Court held writ challenging SARFAESI proceedings not maintainable given efficacious 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 Jagadeesan P.A. and others v. The Manager, Ottapalam Co-operative Urban Bank Limited 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**
**MONDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1945**
**WP(C) NO. 7910 OF 2023**
## **PETITIONERS:**
- **1 JAGADEESAN P.A., AGED 77 YEARS S/O. APPU, PATTIYATTIL HOUSE, KAVALAPARA, KOONATHARA.P.O., VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679523**
- **2 KAMALAKSHY, W/O. LATE. JAGADEESAN, PATTIYATTIL HOUSE, KAVALAPARA, KOONATHARA.P.O., VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT .**
- **3 UDAYAKUMAR P.J., S/O. LATE JAGADEESAN, PATTIYATTIL HOUSE, KAVALAPARA, KOONATHARA P.O., VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALA TALUK, PALAKKD DISTRICT M, PIN 679523.**
- **4 SAJEESH KUMAR P.J., S/O. LATE JAGADEESAN, PATTIYATTIL HOUSE, KAVALAPARA, KOONATHARA P.O., VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKD DISTRICT , PIN- 679523.**
- **5 SURESH KUMAR P.J., S/O LATE JAGADEESAN, PATTIYATTIL HOUSE, KAVALAPARA, KOONATHARA P.O., VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK , PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 679523.**
- **6 SUBHASH P.J., S/O. LATE JAGADEESAN, PATTIYATTIL HOUSE, KAVALAPARAM, KOONATHARA P.O., VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 679523.**
**(ADDITIONAL PETITIONERS 2 TO 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.03.2024 IN IA.2/2024 IN WPC.7910/2024)**
**BY ADV C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN**
W.P.(C) No.7910/2023
: 2 :
## **RESPONDENT:**
**THE MANAGER, THE OTTAPALAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED NO. F 1647, HEAD OFFICE, MAIN ROAD, OTTAPALAM 679101 , PALAKKAD DISTRICT ., PIN – 679101**
**BY ADVS. VINOD MADHAVAN M.V.BOSE BIJU VARGHESE ERUMALA SANIYA C.V.**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.P.(C) No.7910/2023
: 3 :
## **N. NAGARESH, J.**
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
## W.P.(C) No.7910 of 2023
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
_Dated this the 11[th] day of March, 2024_
## **J U D G M E N T**
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The 1[st] petitioner, who had availed a loan of ₹15 lakhs from the Ottapalam Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, filed the writ petition seeking to direct the respondent-Bank to set aside the notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and further proceedings for taking possession of the property. The 1[st] petitioner passed away during the pendency of the writ petition and additional petitioners 2 to 6 got impleaded in the writ petition as legal heirs.
2. The 1[st] petitioner availed ₹15 lakhs as loan for starting a flour mill. The 1[st] petitioner was extended with an
W.P.(C) No.7910/2023
: 4 :
Overdraft facility also by the Bank. When the 1[st] petitioner committed default in repayment of loan and maintaining the OD account, the Bank insisted for closing the loan.
3. The petitioners state that the 1[st] petitioner applied for a One Time Settlement. However, the Bank issued Ext.P2 notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. According to the petitioners, the Bank demanded an excess amount of ₹10 lakhs than the actual due. The 1[st] petitioner filed Ext.P4 objection to the Section 13(2) demand.
4. According to the petitioners, the Bank, without considering the objection, invoked Section 14. The Advocate Commissioner thereupon issued Ext.P5 notice dated 24.02.2023. The 1[st] petitioner made Ext.P6 offer for One Time Settlement. Without considering the said request, the respondent is continuing with the coercive proceedings.
5. The respondent-Manager of the Bank opposed the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The respondent stated
W.P.(C) No.7910/2023
: 5 :
that a loan of ₹15 lakhs was advanced to the 1[st] petitioner on the basis of a mortgage of 36.48 Cents of land. The 1[st] petitioner was given ₹10 lakhs as Overdraft facility. At present, an amount of ₹33,20,685/- is outstanding and is payable by the additional petitioners 2 to 6. The writ petition is not maintainable, contended the respondent.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
7. The prayer of the petitioners is to set aside Section 13(2) notice caused to be issued by the respondent under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioners have also sought for other incidental reliefs. The petitioner is, in fact, aggrieved by the steps taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act.
8. 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.**_
W.P.(C) No.7910/2023
: 6 :
_**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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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
W.P.(C) No.7910/2023
: 7 :
appropriate redressal, the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances.
12. 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**
aks/20.03.2024
W.P.(C) No.7910/2023
: 8 :
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7910/2023**
**PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS**
**Exhibit.P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PASSBOOK ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.**
**Exhibit.P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK DATED 01.11.2022 TO THE PETITIONER.**
**Exhibit.P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE BANK DATED 30.12.2019 Exhibit.P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 01.01.2023 Exhibit.P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 24.02.2023**
**Exhibit.P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 28.02.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER**