Anas Y @ Anas Yoosuf Kunju vs The Authorized Officer on 31 March, 2026

[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Anas Y @ Anas Yoosuf Kunju vs The Authorized Officer on 31 March, 2026

W.A.No.604 of 2026 is one filed by respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C)No.47710 of 2025, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the interim order dated 05.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.1 of 2026 in that writ petition. The 1st respondent herein filed the said writ petition, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 therein (appellants in W.A.No.604 of 2026) not to proceed based on Ext.P2 possession notice dated 10.07.2023, Ext.P8 order dated 26.11.2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam in M.C.No.1689 of 2025 and Ext.P12 notice dated 03.12.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed in M.C.No.1689 of 2025, against the petitioner's property having an extent of 3.75 Ares comprised in Survey No.298/11 in Block No.15 of Thevalakkara Village of Karunagappally Taluk and 5.64 Ares in Re.Sy.No.5/2 and 5/3 in Block No.167 of Kollam East Village of Kollam Taluk in Kollam District, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 6 2026:KER:29110 Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI' Act); a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P8 order dated 26.11.2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam in M.C.No.1689 of 2025; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 therein to allow the petitioner to remit the dues as on date, in fair and equal instalments; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 therein to allow the petitioner to settle the entire loan by One Time Settlement, by excluding penal interest; and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 therein to reconsider and reduce the penal interest and interest rate in respect of the loan transactions referred to in paragraph No.2 of the writ petition.

2. The loan transactions referred to in paragraph No.2 of the statement of facts in W.P.(C)No.47710 of 2025 read thus;


    Date             Account No.          Loan Availed      Balance amount to
                                                            be paid


    16.03.2017       19985500000386       Rs.65,00,000/-  Rs.3,74,88,781.81
                                          (Thereafter,    as on 06.07.2023
                                          the same was
                                          enhanced to
                                          Rs.3,50,00,000)


    07.08.2020       19987100000014       Rs. 50,00,000/-   Rs.33,56,750/- as
                                                            on 09.06.2023
    28.12.2021       19886900000430       Rs. 6,30,000/-    Rs.5,37,368.41/-
                                                            as on 28.06.2023
    03.03.2017       19986600000201       Rs. 6,90,000/-    Rs.2,47,680.23/-
                                                            as on 03.07.2023
 W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026           7
                                                              2026:KER:29110

    16.03.2017       19986900000091       Rs. 20,00,000/-   Rs.6,81,184.09/-
                                                            as on 16.06.2023
    05.08.2017       19986900000125       Rs. 7,30,000/-    Rs.1,17,199.58/-
                                                            as on 05.07.2023
    05.06.2020       19986900000224       Rs. 19,10,000/-   Rs.9,58,763/-   as
                                                            on 05.07.2023

3. On 18.12.2025, when W.P.(C)No.47710 of 2025 came up for admission, the learned Single Judge passed a detailed order, which reads thus;

"Adv. Mohan Jacob George takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. Adv. Mansoor Ali K A appears for the 3rd respondent.

2. On the basis of Ext. P14 agreement dated 20.01.2025, the 3rd respondent has agreed to purchase the secured asset. Pursuant thereto, a total amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Five Lakhs only) has already been remitted and deposited with the bank, of which Rs.25,00,000/- was paid in March 2025, Rs. 15,00,000/- in August 2025, and Rs. 15,00,000/- in September 2025.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some indulgence from this Court and submits that a further sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- will be paid on or before 15.01.2026. It is also submitted that the 3rd respondent has agreed to pay the balance amount at the earliest. Therefore, it is prayed that the coercive proceedings against the petitioner may be deferred, failing which irreparable injury and hardship would be caused to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent- purchaser may back out from the agreement.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank opposes the same and submits that the outstanding amount as on today W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 8 2026:KER:29110 (18.12.2025) comes to Rs.5 crores eighty lakhs. It is further submitted that the petitioner has paid only Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Five Lakhs only) and, therefore, no indulgence can be granted.

Taking note of the fact that since March 2025, onwards the petitioner has remitted an amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Five Lakhs only) and that the petitioner is ready to deposit a further sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs only) on or before 15.01.2026, I am inclined to grant the petitioner one more opportunity to save the property by directing him to deposit Rs.25,00,000/- on or before 15.01.2026. Till such time, all coercive proceedings shall stand stayed."

4. On 05.03.2026, when the writ petition came up for consideration, along with I.A.No.1 of 2026, the learned Single Judge passed the following order;

"As per order dated 18.12.2025, the petitioner was directed to remit Rs.25 lakhs. The petitioner remitted only Rs.15 lakhs on 03.02.2026 and the balance amount of Rs.10 lakhs on 03.03.2026. Thus the interim order is complied with. Coercive proceedings shall stand stayed for another period of two weeks. Post on 09.03.2026 to get instructions as to whether the 3rd respondent is ready to pay the balance amount in instalments."

5. Challenging the order dated 05.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.1 of 2026 in W.P.(C)No.47710 of 2025, respondents 1 and 2 therein have filed W.A.No.604 of 2026. W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 9

2026:KER:29110

6. In W.P.(C)No.47710 of 2025, respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit dated 10.03.2026, opposing the reliefs sought for, raising the question of maintainability.

7. By the judgment dated 19.03.2026, the learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.(C)No.47710 of 2025, without prejudice to the contentions taken by the petitioner and the right of the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy. The said judgment reads thus;

"It is aggrieved by the coercive steps taken by respondents 1 and 2 under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act' for short), this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

3. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 vehemently opposed entertaining this writ petition and granting the reliefs to the petitioner since, he has an efficacious alternative remedy before the DRT.

4. I find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. The Honourable Apex Court in a catena of decisions including the decisions in Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and Others [2022 KHC OnLine 6040], South Indian Bank Ltd. (M/s.) v. Naveen Mathew Philip W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 10 2026:KER:29110 [2023 KHC OnLine 6435] and PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank [2024 KHC OnLine 6208], have categorically held that writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings must not be entertained since the aggrieved persons have an alternative and efficacious remedy before the DRT.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions and right of the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy."

8. The judgment dated 19.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.47710 of 2025 is under challenge in W.A.No.805 of 2026 filed by the petitioner therein.

9. We heard arguments of the learned counsel for Federal Bank Ltd., for the appellants-respondents in W.A.No.604 of 2026 and the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner in W.A.No.805 of 2026.

10. The issue that requires consideration in these writ appeals is as to whether any interference is warranted on the order dated 05.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.1 of 2026 in W.P.(C)No.47710 of 2025, which is under challenge in W.A.No.604 of 2026, and the judgment dated 19.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, which is under challenge in W.A.No.805 of 2026.

 W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026        11
                                                      2026:KER:29110

11. The learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.805 of 2026, who is for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.47710 of 2025, would contend that, though the appellant-petitioner was prepared to pay off the entire dues in monthly instalments, the learned Single Judge did not consider the said request and dismissed the writ petition by the impugned judgment dated 19.03.2026. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge warrants interference in W.A.No.805 of 2026.

12. The learned counsel for Federal Bank Ltd., for the appellants in W.A.No.604 of 2026, who are respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C)No.47710 of 2025, would point out that the total liability of the 1st respondent-petitioner as on March 2026 comes to Rs.6.47 crores. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking interference in the SARFAESI proceedings, by filing W.P.(C)No.10280 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn by Ext.P7 judgment dated 10.07.2024, with liberty to approach the appropriate forum. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, by invoking the provisions under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, by filing S.A.No.924 of 2024. The interim relief sought for in that S.A. was declined by the order of the W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 12 2026:KER:29110 Tribunal dated 30.12.2024. If the 1st respondent-petitioner is aggrieved by the measures taken by the Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the remedy available to him is to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, by invoking the provisions under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. If the petitioner wants to challenge the order dated 30.12.2024 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in S.A.No.924 of 2024, whereby the interim relief was declined, he has to approach the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, by invoking the provisions under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, after complying with the requirement of statutory pre-deposit. At any rate, the 1st respondent-petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

13. In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110], a Two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that if the 1st respondent guarantor had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act or the action taken under Section 14, then he could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The expression 'any person' W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 13 2026:KER:29110 used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective.

14. In Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110], on the facts of the case at hand, the Apex Court noted that the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. While dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves, inasmuch as, W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 14 2026:KER:29110 they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.

15. In South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311], in the context of the challenge made against the notices issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the Apex Court reiterated the settled position of law on the interference of the High Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India in commercial matters, where an effective and efficacious alternative forum has been constituted through a statute. In the said decision, the Apex Court took judicial notice of the fact that certain High Courts continue to interfere in such matters, leading to a regular supply of cases before the Apex Court. The Apex Court reiterated that a writ of certiorari is to be issued over a decision when the court finds that the process does not conform to the law or the statute. In other words, courts are not expected to substitute themselves with the W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 15 2026:KER:29110 decision-making authority while finding fault with the process along with the reasons assigned. Such a writ is not expected to be issued to remedy all violations. When a Tribunal is constituted, it is expected to go into the issues of fact and law, including a statutory violation. A question as to whether such a violation would be over a mandatory prescription as against a discretionary one is primarily within the domain of the Tribunal. The issues governing waiver, acquiescence and estoppel are also primarily within the domain of the Tribunal. The object and reasons behind the SARFAESI Act are very clear as observed in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [(2004) 4 SCC 311]. While it facilitates a faster and smoother mode of recovery sans any interference from the court, it does provide a fair mechanism in the form of the Tribunal being manned by a legally trained mind. The Tribunal is clothed with a wide range of powers to set aside an illegal order, and thereafter, grant consequential reliefs, including repossession and payment of compensation and costs. Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act gives an expansive meaning to the expression 'any person', who could approach the Tribunal.

16. In Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311], W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 16 2026:KER:29110 the Apex Court noticed that, in matters under the SARFAESI Act, approaching the High Court for the consideration of an offer by the borrower is also frowned upon by the Apex Court. A writ of mandamus is a prerogative writ. The court cannot exercise the said power in the absence of any legal right. More circumspection is required in a financial transaction, particularly when one of the parties would not come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. When a statute prescribes a particular mode, an attempt to circumvent that mode shall not be encouraged by a writ court. A litigant cannot avoid the non-compliance of approaching the Tribunal, which requires the prescription of fees, and use the constitutional remedy as an alternative. In paragraph 17 of the decision, the Apex Court reiterated the position of law regarding the interference of the High Courts in matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act by quoting its earlier decisions in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas [(2003) 10 SCC 733], United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110], State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [(2018) 3 SCC 85], Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir [(2022) 5 SCC 345] and Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 17 2026:KER:29110 Sreenivasulu [(2023) 2 SCC 168] wherein the said practice has been deprecated while requesting the High Courts not to entertain such cases. In paragraph 18 of the said decision, the Apex Court observed that the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are rather wide, but are required to be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances in matters pertaining to proceedings and adjudicatory scheme qua a statute, more so in commercial matters involving a lender and a borrower, when the legislature has provided for a specific mechanism for appropriate redressal.

17. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110] and reiterated in Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311], if the 1st respondent-petitioner has any grievance against the proceedings initiated by the secured creditor under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, he could have availed the statutory remedy by filing an application under Section 17 of the said Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

18. When the remedy available to an aggrieved person under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is both expeditious and W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 18 2026:KER:29110 effective, as held by the Apex Court in Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110], the borrower, the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken by the secured creditor under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act have to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal availing the statutory remedy provided under Section 17 of the said Act, instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

19. In the instant case, as pointed out by the learned counsel for Federal Bank Ltd., the 1st respondent-petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.10280 of 2024, seeking interference in the SARFAESI proceedings, which was dismissed as withdrawn by Ext.P7 judgment dated 10.07.2024, with liberty to approach the appropriate forum. Thereafter, S.A.No.924 of 2024 was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, invoking the provisions under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The interim relief sought for in that S.A. was declined by the order of the Tribunal dated 30.12.2024. The 1st respondent-petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said order of the Tribunal, before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, by invoking the provisions W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 19 2026:KER:29110 under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, after complying with the requirement of statutory pre-deposit. Having failed to do so, the 1st respondent-petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by filing W.P.(C)No.47710 of 2025.

20. In Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KLT 784], the Apex Court held that no writ petition would lie against the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, in view of the statutory remedy available under the said Act.

21. In Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir [(2022) 5 SCC 345] the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. (for brevity 'ARC'), which is a private financial institution, proposed to take action under the SARFAESI Act to recover the borrowed amount as a secured creditor. The Apex Court held that ARC as such cannot be said to be performing public functions which are normally expected to be performed by State authorities. During the course of a commercial transaction and under the contract, the bank/ARC lends money to the borrowers and the said activity of the bank/ARC cannot be said to be as performing a public function, which is normally expected W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 20 2026:KER:29110 to be performed by the State authorities. If proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any proposed action is to be taken, and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, he has to avail the remedy under the SARFESI Act, and no writ petition would lie and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable.

22. In Sobha S. v. Muthoot Finance Limited [2025 (2) KHC 229], the Apex Court considered the question of maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a private non-banking financial company and also a private company carrying on banking business as a Scheduled Bank. In the said case, the Apex Court held that a private company carrying on banking business as a Scheduled Bank cannot be termed as a company carrying on any public function or public duty. Merely because a Statute or a rule having the force of a statute requires a company or some other body to do a particular thing, it does not possess the attribute of a statutory body.

23. In the instant case, Federal Bank Ltd. is a private company carrying on banking business as a Scheduled Bank. In W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 21 2026:KER:29110 view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. [(2022) 5 SCC 345] and Sobha S. [2025 (2) KHC 229], the 1st respondent-petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C)No. 47710 of 2025 to allow him to remit the dues in fair and equal intallments and other reliefs sought for in the writ petition in respect of the loan transactions referred to in paragraph 2 of the statement of facts.

24. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, we find no reason to sustain the impugned interim order dated 05.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.47710 of 2025, and we also find no reason to interfere with the final judgment dated 19.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge, whereby that writ petition was dismissed without prejudice to the right of the writ petitioner to avail the statutory remedy provided under the SARFAESI Act.

In the result, W.A.No.604 of 2026 filed by respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C)No.47710 of 2025 is allowed by setting aside the interim order dated 05.03.2026 passed by the learned Single W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 22 2026:KER:29110 Judge in that writ petition; and W.A.No.805 of 2026 filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.47710 of 2025 is dismissed, declining interference on the final judgment dated 19.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE MSA W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 23 2026:KER:29110 APPENDIX OF WA NO. 604 OF 2026 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.07.2024 IN R.P.NO.486/2024 Annexure A2 COPY OF ADVOCATE COMMISSION'S REPORT DATED 05.03.2026 Annexure A3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2025 IN W.P.(C) NO.47710/2025 Annexure A4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2026 IN IA NO.1/2026 IN W.P.(C) NO.47710/2025 Annexure A5 COPY OF THE INVENTORY PREPARED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER - APARNA A R ON 05.03.2026 IN M.C.1689/2025 OF CJM COURT, KOLLAM W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 24 2026:KER:29110 APPENDIX OF WA NO. 805 OF 2026 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-12-2025 IN WP© NO.47710 OF 2025 Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION NOTICE DATED 27-02-2026 ISSUED AS PER M.C NO.1689 OF2025 OF CJM KOLLAM Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE I A NO. 1 OF 2026 IN WP© 47710 OF 2025 Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT DATED FOR A PERIOD OF 02-02-2026 TO 04-03- 2026 ISSUED ON 04-03-2026 BY THE RESPONDENT BANK Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 05/03/2026 IN WP© 47710 OF 2025 Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PARTS OF THE WRIT APPEAL NO.604 OF 2026 EXCEPT ANNEXURES

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court