THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, AXIS BANK LTD., vs REJI PAULOSE,

2026:KER:37390
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
ST
MONDAY, THE 1 DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 10326 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2025 IN MC NO.637 OF
2025 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS:
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, AXIS BANK LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT-
1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 'TRISHUL',
3RD FLOOR, OPPOSITE SAMARTHESHWAR TEMPLE, ELLIS
BRIDGE, AHMEDABAD AND HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT
AGRI BUSINESS CENTRE, AXIS BANK LTD, 1ST FLOOR,
PUKALAKKAT CITY CENTRE, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI AND
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE AXIS
BANK LTD., RETAIL ASSET CENTRE, 5TH FLOOR CHICAGO
PLAZA, RAJAJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682035
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY
SHRI.SREEJITH K.
SHRI. G.VISWANATHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 REJI PAULOSE,
MANIYIRICKAL HOUSE, VALAKAM,ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682316
2 SARAKUTTY PAULOSE,
MANIYIRICKAL HOUSE, VALAKAM,ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682316

2
2026:KER:37390
WP(C) NO. 10326 OF 2026
3 LIJI K JOSEPH,
MANIYIRICKAL HOUSE,VALAKAM,ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682316
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

3
2026:KER:37390
WP(C) NO. 10326 OF 2026
“CR”
JUDGMENT
st
Dated this the 1 day of June, 2026
The petitioner - a secured creditor, approached
the Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
(for the trial of criminal cases against sitting
and former MPs/MLAs of Kerala), Ernakulam by filing
an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI
Act, seeking assistance for taking physical
possession of the secured asset, when a default was
committed by the borrowers.
2. The learned ACJM, after verifying the
affidavit filed by the petitioner and after being
satisfied that all the statutory requirements have
been complied with, as per Ext.P1 order, ordered
taking possession of the secured asset with the aid
of an Advocate Commissioner. Thereafter, the matter
was posted to 04.03.2026 and on that day, the

4
2026:KER:37390
WP(C) NO. 10326 OF 2026
learned ACJM passed Ext.P2 order referring the case
for mediation. It is challenging Ext.P2 order, the
secured creditor has approached this Court by
filing this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner. Even though the respondents were
served, there is no representation for them.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by
relying on the decision of the Apex Court in
R.D.Jain and Co. (M/s) v. Capital First Ltd. and
Others [(2023) 1 SCC 675] and the decision of this
Court in C.R.Sindhu v. State of Kerala and Others
[2007 (4) KHC 944] , contended that the ACJM has no
power to refer the matter for mediation, in an
application filed by the secured creditor under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. He submitted that
the role of the ACJM is only ministerial and when
an application is filed under Section 14, his only

5
2026:KER:37390
WP(C) NO. 10326 OF 2026
duty is to verify whether the application is filed
properly as per the statute and thereafter, ensure
that the possession of the secured asset is handed
over to the secured creditor.
5. On an anxious consideration of the
submissions and the materials on record, I find
considerable force in the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. It cannot be
disputed that the power exercised by the CJM/ACJM
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is a
ministerial act. The CJM does not perform any quasi
judicial function and there is no element of
application of mind in the process, since it does
not involve any adjudicatory process. That apart,
it is to be taken note that as mandated under
Section 14, the CJM has to act within the
stipulated time limit and pass appropriate orders
for the purpose of taking possession of the secured

6
2026:KER:37390
WP(C) NO. 10326 OF 2026
asset, within a period of 30 days from the date of
application, which can be extended for such further
period, not exceeding 60 days and that the time is
the essence and spirit of the enactment. Further,
the Magistrate has no discretion in the matter and
he is not expected to pass any order in Section 14
application except to take possession of the same
and hand it over to the creditor [see R.D.Jain
(supra) and C.R.Sindhu (supra) ]
6. If so, in the light of the afore
principles, I have no hesitation to find that
Ext.P2 order passed by the learned Magistrate
referring the parties to mediation cannot be
sustained and the same is only to be set aside.
Ergo, this writ petition is allowed and Ext.P2
order dated 04.03.2026 passed by the Special
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (for the trial
of criminal cases against sitting and former

7
2026:KER:37390
WP(C) NO. 10326 OF 2026
MPs/MLAs of Kerala), Ernakulam in M.C.No.637 of
2025 is set aside and the learned Magistrate is
directed to proceed with the application filed by
the petitioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act
and pass appropriate orders as per law.
Sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
scl

8
2026:KER:37390
WP(C) NO. 10326 OF 2026
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 10326 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN MC NO. 637/2025
DATED 04.12.2025
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
04.03.2026