Kerala High Court
M/S Niyon Eco Green vs The Canara Bank on 18 June, 2025
WP(C) NO. 18823 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:44863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 18823 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
M/S NIYON ECO GREEN,
NEAR RC CHURCH, KAMUKINCODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROPRIETOR BINDU.L, D/O.LAZER.A, PLANKALA PUTHEN
VEEDU, CHENKAL.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695132
BY ADVS.
SMT.TISSY ROSE K CHERIYAN
SMT.ASHIKA JOSHY
SMT.AMRUTHA SELVARAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CANARA BANK,
KAMUKINCODE BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH
MANAGER, KODANGAVILA.P O, THIRUVAVANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695123
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
CANARA BANK,KAMUKINCODE BRANCH,
KODANGAVILA.P.O,THIRUVAVANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
695123
SRI. M. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 18823 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:44863
JUDGMENT
This is the second round of litigation preferred by the petitioner challenging the measures taken by the respondent bank, the secured creditor, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short the 'SARFAESI Act).
2. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.14046/2024 which resulted in Ext.P1 judgment wherein the petitioner had only sought the grant of an instalment facility, which was allowed by this court. Admittedly, the conditions therein were not complied with. The present writ petition also challenges the actions of the secured creditor against the defaulting borrower and is therefore on the very same cause of action, and resultantly, this writ petition cannot be entertained.
3. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna and Ors. (MANU/SC/1343/2024), which relied on the decisions in State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain [(1977) 2 SCC 806], Devilal Modi v. Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam and Ors [AIR 1965 SC 1150], and WP(C) NO. 18823 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:44863 the English decision in Greenhalgh v. Mallard [(1947) All ER 255 at p.257], to hold that where the same set of facts give rise to multiple causes of action, a litigant cannot be permitted to agitate one cause in one proceeding and reserve the other for future litigation. Such fragmentation aggravates the burden of litigation and is impermissible in law. The Court reiterated that all claims and grounds of defence or attack which could and ought to have been raised in earlier proceedings are barred from being re-agitated subsequently. This rule stems from the Henderson Principle, which, as a corollary of constructive res judicata embodied in Explanation VII to Section 11 CPC, mandates that a party must bring forward the entirety of its case in one proceeding and not in a piecemeal or selective manner. Courts must examine whether a matter could and should have been raised earlier, taking into account the scope of the earlier proceedings and their nexus to the controversy at hand.
4. If the subject matter or seminal issues in a later proceeding are substantially similar or connected to those already adjudicated, the subsequent proceeding amounts to relitigation. Once a cause of WP(C) NO. 18823 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:44863 action has been judicially determined, all issues fundamental to that cause are deemed to have been conclusively decided, and attempts to revisit any part of it -- even through formal distinctions in forums or pleadings -- fall foul of the principle. Moreover, any plea or issue that was raised earlier and then abandoned is deemed waived and cannot be resurrected. The overarching object is to protect the finality of adjudications, discourage strategic or delayed litigation, and uphold judicial propriety and fairness by ensuring that parties do not approbate and reprobate or exploit procedural plurality to unsettle concluded controversies.
5. Given the above, this writ petition cannot be entertained and the same is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file an application for extension of time for complying with the directions in the earlier judgment, if so advised, or to invoke the remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE lsn WP(C) NO. 18823 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:44863 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18823/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 08.04.2024 IN W.P(C).NO.14046/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MSME OPEN CASH CREDIT LOAN PAID ON 28.11.2024 IN THE ACCOUNT NO.1566768000492(RECOVERY REVERSED TO HO VERTICAL FOR REFUND TO CREDIT GUARANTEE TRUST AS 1566261000610) Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF RS.4,50,000/-
PAID ON 28.11.2024 IN THETERM LOAN ACCOUNT NO.1566261000610 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF RS.RS.5000/-
PAID TO FITL LOAN ACCOUNT NO.1566747000002 ON 28.11.2024