Jijin J.S. v Union Bank of India
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C.S. Dias
- Judgment Date
- 2023-06-26
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition dismissed; petitioner may approach bank with a concrete proposal or approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Sec.17; if a proposal is submitted within one week, the competent authority shall consider it after hearing.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition dismissed; petitioner may seek relief through statutory remedies under SARFAESI or DRT.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Jijin J.S.
Respondents
- Union Bank of India
- Union Bank of India, Neyyattinkara Branch
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Suman Chakravarthy
- • Sandeep T. George
Counsels for Respondents
- • C. Muralikrishnan
- • A.S.P Kurup
- • Sadchith P. Kurup
- • C. P. Anil Raj
- • Siva Suresh
- • Reshma Raj
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition challenges two notices: Ext P2, a possession notice against item No.2 property, and Ext P3, an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of item No.2. The petitioner Jijin J.S., who availed a term loan by creating an equitable mortgage with the second respondent bank, argues that the bank has proceeded against two properties in a single drive while item No.1 had already been subjected to Ext P1 notice and a pending auction. He asserts that this simultaneous action is high-handed and unfair, and violates the due process and the statutory remedies under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI). The respondents counter that Ext P1 disclosed a true position: item No.1 was offered for auction with a reserve price of Rs 79,25,000 to recover Rs 1,34,04,371.64; because of the shortfall, the bank proceeded against item No.2. They submit Ext P3 is appealable under Sec 17 of the Act, and that the writ petition should be dismissed in light of the alternative remedy. The petition was heard; the learned counsel for both sides relied on a recent Supreme Court decision in South Indian Bank Ltd v. Naveen Mathew Philip, which held that High Courts generally should not interfere with SARFAESI proceedings. The judge ultimately held there is no legal impediment to proceeding against item No.2, but granted a pathway: the petitioner may submit a concrete proposal to the bank or approach the DRT under Sec.17; if a proposal is received within a week, it shall be considered after hearing, and the writ petition is dismissed.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
Jijin J.S. contends that Ext P2 and Ext P3 proceedings against item No.2, while item No.1 is already under Ext P1, amount to high-handed action and violate principles of due process. He is willing to negotiate through a private sale of item No.1 and seeks deferral of Ext P3; he asks the court to exercise writ jurisdiction only in extraordinary circumstances and to allow available statutory remedies under SARFAESI (Sec.17) if aggrieved.
Contentions of Respondents
The bank submits Ext P1 shows item No.1 was offered for auction with reserve price Rs 79,25,000 to recover Rs 1,34,04,371.64; due to shortfall, they proceeded against item No.2. Ext P3 is an appealable order under Sec.17 of SARFAESI; there is an adequate remedy outside writ jurisdiction, so the writ petition should be dismissed.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| South Indian Bank Ltd v. Naveen Mathew Philip | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320 | Positive | SC held that High Courts should not interfere with SARFAESI proceedings except in extraordinary circumstances; the judgment is cited to support the principle that writ jurisdiction should not derail such actions. |
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 Jijin J.S. v Union 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.