Kerala High Court
WA/656/2025 of MUHSINA N., Vs THE BRANCH MANAGER, on 11 April 2025
WA NO. 656 OF 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947 WA NO. 656 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.03.2025 IN WP(C) NO.8944
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947
WA NO. 656 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.03.2025 IN WP(C) NO.8944 OF 2025
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MUHSINA N.,
AGED 25 YEARS
D/O. MOHAMMED SALI NAVAS, A.S. MANZIL, KULAKUDIYOORKONAM, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695020
BY ADVS.
E.D.GEORGE
BENET SELVAN S.
BRISONE T. MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
FEDERAL BANK, KADAKAL BRANCH, KST MAGGS MARKET JUNCTION, MARKET, NEAR KADAKKAL, KERALA, PIN - 691536
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
FEDERAL BANK, KADAKAL BRANCH, KST MAGGS MARKET JUNCTION, MARKET, NEAR KADAKKAL, KERALA, PIN - 691536
BY ADVS.
P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY
SREEJITH K.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 11th day of April 2025) NITIN JAMDAR, C.J. Heard Mr.E.D.George, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.Paulochan Antony, learned counsel for the Respondents.
2. As against the action taken by the secured creditor under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), it is more than settled that the remedy of the affected parties is to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. This position of law has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon1 , PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank2 and South Indian Bank v. Abdulla Kulukkampara3 .
3. In light thereof, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 10 Mach 2025 in W.P(C)No.8944 of 2025. If 1[2010 (8) SCC 110] 2[2024 (6) SCC 579] 3[2024 SCC OnLine Ker 7015]
the Appellant approaches the Debts Recovery Tribunal, all contentions on merits are kept open.
4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- NITIN JAMDAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- S.MANU JUDGE rp