Kerala High Court
Anas Y @ Anas Yoosuf Kunju vs The Authorized Officer on 31 March, 2026
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 1
2026:KER:29110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WA NO. 604 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2026 IN WP(C) NO.47710 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C):
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.,
LCRD/MAVELIKKARA DIVISION, PADINJARETHALAKKA CHERIAN
CHAMBERS, PUTHIYAKAVU, MAVELIKKARA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690101
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., PADAPPANAL BRANCH,
SRK COMPLEX, ARINALLOOR, PADAPPANAL,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690538
BY ADV SHRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER IN THE W.P.(C)/3RD RESPONDENT
IN W.P.(C):
1 ANAS Y @ ANAS YOOSUF KUNJU,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. YOOSUF KUNJU,
MARAVARAYYATH, MULLIKKALA, THEVALAKKARA PO,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690524
2 ABDUL KHADER,
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O., ABDUL JALEEL , KODIMELKODI PUTHANVEEDU,
TKMCPO, KOTTAMKARA P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691504
W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 2
2026:KER:29110
BY ADVS.
SMT.I.S.LAILA
SHRI.CLINTON LAWRENCE
SMT.NOORIYA C. K.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.03.2026,
ALONG WITH WA.805 OF 2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 3
2026:KER:29110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WA NO. 805 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.03.2026 IN WP(C) NO.47710 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC NO.47710 OF 2025:
ANAS Y @ ANAS YOOSUF KUNJU,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. YOOSUF KUNJU, MARAVARAYYATH,
MULLIKKALA, THEVALAKKARA PO,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 690524
BY ADV SMT.I.S.LAILA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2, 3 IN W.P.(C):
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., LCRD/MAVELIKKARA DIVISION,
PADINJARETHALAKKA CHERIAN CHAMBERS,
PUTHIYAKAVU, MAVELIKKARA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690101
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.,
PADAPPANAL BRANCH, SRK COMPLEX,
ARINALLOOR, PADAPPANAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 690538
3 ABDUL KHADER,
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O., ABDUL JALEEL,
W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 4
2026:KER:29110
KODIMELKODI PUTHANVEEDU, TKMCPO,
KOTTAMKARA P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691504
BY ADV
SRI. MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, FEDERAL BANK
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.03.2026,
ALONG WITH WA.604 OF 2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.604 and 805 of 2026 5
2026:KER:29110
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
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
