SHARAFUDEEN P.A v. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD

this Court. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

5. The pleadings in the writ petition would indicate that the 1st petitioner had approached this Court filing W.P.(C) W.P.(C) No.3208 of 2024 : 4 : No.4256/2021. This Court directed the 1st petitioner to deposit an amount of 3 lakhs by the end of March, 2021. The 1 ₹ petitioner was directed to repay the entire outstanding overdue amount along with interest and other charges in 10 equated successive monthly instalments commencing from 06.04.2021. Thereafter, the 2nd petitioner approached this Court filing W.P. (C) No.4260/2021. In the said case also, similar relief was granted to the 2nd petitioner.

6. Later, the 1st petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.26170/2021. In the said writ petition, this Court granted the 1st petitioner opportunity to clear the overdue amount of 13,88,584/- in nine ₹ monthly instalments. The petitioner's wife was also given similar benefits as per Ext.P5 judgment. In spite of the opportunities given to the petitioners, the petitioners have not cleared the overdue amount payable by the petitioners.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held 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 W.P.(C) No.3208 of 2024 : 5 : 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.

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 SARFAESI Act 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 226 of the Constitution of India shall be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances. W.P.(C) No.3208 of 2024 : 6 :

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. AMR Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE W.P.(C) No.3208 of 2024 : 7 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3208/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26/09/2019 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/02/2021 IN W.P(C) NO.4256 OF 2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/02/2021 IN W.P(C) NO.4260/ 2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/12/2021 IN W.P(C) NO.26170/ 2021. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/12/2021 IN W.P(C) NO.26091/ 2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03/01/2024 (WRONGLY SHOWN AS 03/01/2023) ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.