Shaji and Fousiya v. Canara Bank

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH`** ``` MONDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 11433 OF 2024`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1SHAJI AGED 43 YEARS S/O ATHRUMAN KUTTY, RESIDING AT CHOORAKANDIYIL HOUSE, KATTIPPARA P.O, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673573 2FOUSIYA AGED 37 YEARS W/O SHAJI, RESIDING AT CHOORAKANDIYIL HOUSE, KATTIPPARA P.O, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN – 673573 ``` ``` BY ADVS. R.NIKHIL C.T.BASHEER ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 CANARA BANK, THAMARASSERY BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, 1ST FLOOR, SITHARA BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673573`** - **`2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER CANARA BANK, THAMARASSERY BRANCH, 1ST FLOOR, SITHARA BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673573`** ``` BY ADVS. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M (STANDING COUNSEL) K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984) JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526) KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003) ``` ``` WP(C) No.11433 Of 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006) RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008) ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) No.11433 Of 2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 3[rd] day of June, 2024 The petitioners, who have availed an Agricultural Loan of 35 lakhs in the year 2015 from the Canara Bank Limited,₹ approached this Court when the Canara Bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on the default of the petitioners to maintain the loan account. 2. The petitioners sought to quash Exts.P1 and P2 and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to pay off the entire liability in 45 equal monthly instalments. 3. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that outstanding amount payable by the petitioners would exceed 48,77,018/-. As₹ ``` WP(C) No.11433 Of 2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` the petitioners have efficacious alternate remedy to challenge the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, a writ petition is not maintainable. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission on 25.03.2024, this Court passed an interim order directing that if the petitioners remit an amount of 5 lakhs on or before₹ 30.03.2024 and a further amount of 5 lakhs on or before₹ 10.05.2024, coercive proceedings against the petitioners shall stand deferred till 20.05.2024. It was made clear that if the petitioners fail to make any of the afore two instalments, the interim order will stand vacated. The Standing Counsel submits that no amount has been paid by the petitioners pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court. 5. Heard. ``` WP(C) No.11433 Of 2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` 6. The grievance of the petitioners is against Ext.P1 order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode. Ext.P1 has been passed invoking Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 7. It is settled law that no writ would lie against the proceedings initiated by a financial institution under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 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 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 at the instance of a defaulter since the statute provides for an efficacious alternate remedy. ``` WP(C) No.11433 Of 2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 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 ``` WP(C) No.11433 Of 2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` 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 petition is not maintainable and it is dismissed. Sd/- **N.NAGARESH JUDGE** hmh ``` WP(C) No.11433 Of 2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11433/2024`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2024 IN C.M.P NO:570/2024 ON THE FILESOFTHECHIEFJUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT, KOZHIKODE Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 08.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE 1ST PETITIONER ```