High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-02-22Writ petitions dismissed

Jijin J Shelter v. Authorized Officer, Bank of India

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos.4620 & 4749/2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2024-02-22
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petitions are not maintainable; they are dismissed.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jijin J Shelter

Respondents

Authorized Officer, Bank of India

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.R.Sasith R.K.Chirutha

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Jawahar Jose

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a pair of writ petitions filed by Jijin J Shelter seeking relief against proceedings under the SARFAESI Act initiated by the Bank of India. The petitioner seeks (i) 24 equal monthly installments to repay the entire arrears and (ii) to keep the notice under Ext.P2 in abeyance. Ext.P2 is a notice issued by an Advocate Commissioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, and the Respondent Bank has also issued a similar notice in the related petition. The petitions challenge the proceedings initiated under Sections 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act, including the attempt to take over and sell the secured asset. The court heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the respondent. Significantly, the court reiterates settled law that writs are not maintainable against SARFAESI proceedings, citing United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others (2010) 8 SCC 110, followed by State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. and other precedents (e.g., Anilkumar v. State Bank of India; South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip; Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India). The decision emphasizes that where the SARFAESI mechanism provides an efficacious remedy, Article 226 relief is not warranted except in extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed as not maintainable, with the court underscoring the petitioners’ limited remedy under the SARFAESI Act. The judgment records that authorities from apex and high courts have consistently held against interference with SARFAESI proceedings by writ petitions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends for immediate relief in the form of 24 equal monthly installments toward repayment of the arrears, and seeks to keep Ext.P2 (Advocate Commissioner’s notice under SARFAESI) in abeyance, arguing that the financial distress and recovery actions threaten the petitioner’s assets and livelihood. The challenge is premised on securing a fair, structured repayment plan while adjudication on the merits is pending, and requesting protection against impending sale of the secured asset during the interim.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent Bank argues that writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable against proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, where a statutory, efficacious remedy exists. The bank relies on established precedents that such proceedings must be resolved under the SARFAESI framework, and that the Court should refrain from interfering with the statutory process, particularly when measures like possession and sale are governed by Sections 13 and 14 of the Act.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others	(2010) 8 SCC 110	Positive	Cited as establishing that no writ petition lies against SARFAESI proceedings, reinforcing exclusive remedy under SARFAESI.
Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C.	2018 (1) KLT 784	Positive	Reiterates that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is unavailable against SARFAESI proceedings.
Anilkumar v. State Bank of India	2020 (2) KLT 756	Positive	Division Bench followed Satyawati Tondon to hold no interference under Article 226 in SARFAESI matters.
South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen Mathew Philip	2023 (4) KLT 29	Positive	Apex Court held that extraordinary circumstances are required for Article 226 once SARFAESI provides a redressal mechanism.
Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and others	W.P.(C) No.30803/2023	Positive	Writ challenge to SARFAESI proceedings not maintainable where an efficacious remedy exists before the Tribunal.

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 Jijin J Shelter v. Authorized Officer, Bank of India 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** **THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024/3RD PHALGUNA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 4620 OF 2024** **PETITIONER:** **JIJIN J SHELTER, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O D SHELTER, SJ BHAVAN VENNIYOOR, NELLIVILA, VIZHINJAM, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695523** **BY ADVS. M.R.SASITH R.K.CHIRUTHA** **RESPONDENT:** **THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, BANK OF INDIA, GROUND FLOOR, P.V TOWERS MUKKOLA, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695521** **BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).4749/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) Nos.4620 & 4749/2024 : 2 : ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024/3RD PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 4749 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER:** **JIJIN J SHELTER, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O D SHELTER, SJ BHAVAN VENNIYOOR, NELLIVILA, VIZHINJAM, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695523** **BY ADVS. M.R.SASITH R.K.CHIRUTHA** ## **RESPONDENT:** **THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, BANK OF INDIA,GROUND FLOOR, P.V TOWERS MUKKOLA, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695521** **BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).4620/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) Nos.4620 & 4749/2024 : 3 : ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 22[nd] day of February, 2024 [W.P.(C) Nos.4620 and 4749 of 2024] These writ petitions are filed by the petitioner, who has availed financial advance from the Bank of India. In W.P.(C) No.4620 of 2024, the petitioner seeks to direct the respondent to grant 24 equal monthly instalments for repayment of the entire arrears. The petitioner also seeks to keep in abeyance Ext.P2 proceedings. Ext.P2 is a notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner pursuant to an order under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. In W.P.(C) No.4749 of 2024, the petitioner seeks to direct the respondent to grant 24 instalments and to keep in abeyance Ext.P2 proceedings. Ext.P2 is a notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner, who has been appointed by W.P.(C) Nos.4620 & 4749/2024 : 4 : the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is relating to the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Sections 13 and 14 of the Securitisation Act and the attempt of the respondent to take over and sell the secured asset provided by the petitioner. 5. 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. W.P.(C) Nos.4620 & 4749/2024 : 5 : 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. In Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and others (W.P.(C) No.30803/2023), this Court held that writ W.P.(C) Nos.4620 & 4749/2024 : 6 : 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** SR W.P.(C) Nos.4620 & 4749/2024 : 7 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4620/2024** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 03/10/2023 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22/1/2024** W.P.(C) Nos.4620 & 4749/2024 : 8 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4749/2024** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 03/10/2023 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER NOTICE DATED 27/1/2024 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER**