Kerala High Court rejects borrowers' second plea for instalments against Kerala Bank
The Kerala High Court dismissed a second writ by two borrowers seeking instalments against Kerala Bank's SARFAESI recovery, after they failed to pay as earlier allowed.
Key points
- The Kerala High Court on 29 October 2026 dismissed a writ petition by two borrowers against recovery action by Kerala Bank.
- The court noted it had allowed instalments in a 4 June 2026 judgment, but the borrowers did not pay as directed.
- The court held that a litigant cannot keep returning on the same matter, and writ relief in SARFAESI cases is very limited.
Photo: Augustus Binu / www.dreamsparrow.net / facebook / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0 (cropped). File photo.
The Kerala High Court on 29 October 2026 dismissed a writ petition by two borrowers who had asked, for a second time, to be allowed to repay their dues to the Kerala State Co-operative Bank (Kerala Bank) in instalments. The court held that the borrowers, who had not paid the instalments it allowed earlier, could not seek the same relief again in the same recovery proceedings.
What Happened
Kerala Bank had started recovery proceedings against the borrowers under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the law that lets banks take possession of and sell property pledged as security for a loan without first going to a civil court.
The borrowers had approached the High Court earlier. In a judgment dated 4 June 2026, the court disposed of that petition and allowed them to pay off the dues in instalments. According to the judgment, the borrowers failed to pay the instalments as directed, and the bank continued with recovery. An advocate commissioner issued a notice to them on 3 October 2026.
The borrowers then filed a fresh petition against the later steps, again asking to pay in instalments. They argued that their grievance concerned new actions, so the earlier judgment did not bar it.
The court disagreed. Relying on Supreme Court rulings, it held that the principle of res judicata, which stops the same dispute being fought twice, applies to writ petitions. It said that a litigant who has not complied with conditions set in an earlier writ, and who seeks the same directions again at a later stage of the same proceedings, is abusing the court's process. It added that the Supreme Court has held that the scope for interfering with SARFAESI proceedings in writ jurisdiction is exceedingly limited.
What It Means
For borrowers facing SARFAESI recovery, the ruling shows that instalment relief granted by a High Court comes with conditions that must be met. Per the judgment, a borrower who does not pay as directed cannot expect the court to grant the same relief again in a fresh writ on the same loan, and the bank may continue recovery.
The judgment can be challenged before a higher bench or the Supreme Court.
Source: High Court judgment
Sources & Citations
- High Court judgment — Kerala High Court