HASHIM ALI U.A v. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER

BY ADV.SRI.PRADEESH CHACKO THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.77 of 2024 :2: J U D G M E N T Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2024 The petitioner, who has availed a Home Loan from the Axis Bank Limited, has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to pay the defaulted arrears of the Housing Loan in 15 equated monthly instalments.

When the writ petition came up for admission, this Court passed an interim order on 04.01.2024 staying further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 on condition that the petitioner remits an amount of ₹1 lakh towards the overdue amount on or before 31.01.2024.

Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has not deposited the said amount as directed by this Court. W.P.(C) No.77 of 2024 :3:

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

The petitioner in effect is challenging the proceedings initiated by the respondents invoking the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

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.

In the judgment in Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KLT 784], the W.P.(C) No.77 of 2024 :4: 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.

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.

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.

In Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and others (W.P.(C) No.30803/2023), this Court held that writ petition W.P.(C) No.77 of 2024 :5: 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. JUDGE Sd/- N. NAGARESH W.P.(C) No.77 of 2024 :6: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 77/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 16/6/2023 IN CMP NO.2459/2023 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT; KASARAGOD