Sharafudheen vs South Indian Bank Ltd

C.S.Dias, J

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P3 notice issued by the respondents.

The petitioner's case is that, he is the rightful owner of a property belonging to his mother and his brothers. The petitioner along with other owners have made personal investments in the property. The petitioner’s father had availed financial assistance from the Kerala Financial Corporation (in short, ‘KFC’). Thereafter, the respondent bank took over the Kerala Financial Corporation. Due to unprecedented floods and the Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner and co-owners could not repay the loan amount. The bank has now proceeded against the secured asset under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (in short, ‘Act’). Now, an Advocate Commissioner has issued Ext.P3 notice under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, which is unjustifiable and illegal.

Heard; Smt.Maitreyi Sachchidananda Hedge, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Mohan Jacob George, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

Sri.Mohan Jacob George, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner had given an undertaking before the third respondent to pay off the outstanding amount on or before 30.06.2023 and close the loan account. Thus, after making a solemn undertakings, it is unjustifiable on the part of the petitioner to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  in  South Indian Bank Ltd vs. Naveen Mathew Philip (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320), after adverting to a myriad of earlier judicial pronouncements rendered under the Act, has categorically declared that the High Courts shall not, unless in extra ordinary circumstances, interfere with proceedings initiated under the Act, in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fact that Ext.P3 notice is issued under Section 14 of the Act and the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Act, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, it would be up to the petitioner to invoke his statutory remedies under the Act.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his remedies, in accordance with law.