Case Note & Summary
This writ appeal was preferred before the High Court of Kerala against the judgment dated 06.04.2026 rendered by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.5272 of 2026. The litigation arose in the context of proceedings initiated by the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd through its Authorized Officer and Branch Manager at Mangattukadavu Branch under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The appellant Sini Thomas K.J. had filed the underlying writ petition challenging those proceedings. The appeal came up for admission before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. on 03.08.2026. At the hearing, the appellant was not represented; Ms. Amrutha K. P. appeared as learned counsel representing Mr. K. S. Arun Kumar for the respondents. The appeal was filed with a delay of 58 days. The Court observed that even if the delay was explained and condoned, there was no reason on merits to interfere with the Single Judge's order. The Court noted that all issues raised regarding non-compliance with Section 14 and other breaches could be more easily and conveniently raised before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The primary legal question was whether the writ appeal should be entertained on merits despite the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Division Bench concluded that the appropriate forum for the appellant's objections was the Debt Recovery Tribunal, not the writ court. Accordingly, the Court condoned the delay and disposed of the writ appeal without interfering with the Single Judge's order. It directed that if the appellant approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal with an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 within two weeks from the date of the order, the Tribunal shall accept the application and decide it in accordance with law without insisting on a separate application for condonation of delay. To protect the appellant during that period, the Court directed that for two weeks the Bank shall not take any coercive action against the appellant. The Court expressly clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the matter and that the limited protection was granted only to enable the appellant to approach the Tribunal in the meantime. In the event any application was filed, the Debt Recovery Tribunal was to decide the prayer for interim stay uninfluenced by any observation made in the appellate order. Thus, the High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction over the SARFAESI-related objections and relegated the appellant to the statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, while granting interim protection to preserve the status quo for a limited period.
Headnote
A) Banking and Securitisation - SARFAESI Proceedings - Alternative Statutory Remedy - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Sections 14, 17 - The appellant challenged a Single Judge's order in a writ appeal, raising non-compliance with Section 14 and other breaches. The Division Bench held that these issues could be more easily and conveniently raised before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and therefore declined to interfere with the Single Judge's order. The Court condoned the 58-day delay and directed that if the appellant filed an application under Section 17 within two weeks, the DRT shall accept it without a separate delay condonation application; for two weeks the Bank shall not take coercive action; and the DRT shall decide interim stay uninfluenced by observations. Held that the writ appeal was disposed of without examining merits, with limited protection to approach the Tribunal (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ appeal should be interfered with despite the alternative statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and whether the 58-day delay should be condoned
Final Decision
The Division Bench condoned the delay of 58 days and disposed of the writ appeal without interfering with the Single Judge's order. It directed that if the appellant approaches the Debt Recovery Tribunal with an application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 within two weeks, the DRT shall accept it without insisting on a separate delay condonation application and decide in accordance with law. For two weeks, the Bank shall not take coercive action against the appellant. The court clarified that it had not gone into merits and the DRT shall decide interim stay uninfluenced by any observation made in this order.
Law Points
- Issues regarding non-compliance with Section 14 and other breaches under SARFAESI Act can be raised before Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17
- Writ appeal against Single Judge order not entertained on merits
- delay condoned
- limited protection from coercive action for two weeks
- DRT to accept Section 17 application without separate condonation
