Kerala HC single-judge questions Division Bench's interference with his orders; refers scope of intra-court appeals to larger Bench

A single-judge Bench of the Kerala High Court recently questioned a Division Bench's decision to set aside his interim orders twice, finding that such back-to-back directions to reconsider the matter was not good for the judicial system and exceeded the scope of intra-court appeals [M/S Grids Engineers and Contractors v Union Bank of India & anr]..The single judge, Justice Mohammed Nias CP noted that this was not the first time that such conflicts have arisen between single judge Benches and Division Benches which hear appeals against single-judge orders. Justice Nias has, therefore, called for a larger Bench of the High Court to resolve such issues by clarifying the scope of intra-court appeals. "Since this issue has arisen on more than one occasion in the appeals filed against the interim orders in the instant writ petition itself at different stages, and is arising frequently, I feel that the scope of an intra-court appeal under S.5 of the Kerala High Court Act, in particular, against the interim orders passed by the Single Judge, calls for consideration by a Larger Bench of this Court. The Registry is directed to place this writ petition before the Honourable Chief Justice for appropriate orders," the September 15 ruling said. .The single judge was considering a writ petition filed against debt recovery proceedings initiated by a bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).On July 18, the judge granted an interim stay on the recovery proceedings.This stay was challenged in an appeal by the bank before a Division Bench, which set aside the interim stay order on finding that the single-judge had not cited any reasons in the July 18 order.Thereafter, the single-judge heard the matter again and passed another more detailed interim stay order on August 18.The bank again approached the Division Bench, which set aside the August order as well, on the ground that one specific issue, namely that of whether the writ petition was maintainable, was not considered by the single-judge bench in its proper perspective.When the case came up before Justice Nias again, he observed that there are several caselaws which indicate that writ petitions are always maintainable since they involve the exercise of plenary jurisdiction.He added that the question of whether to entertain a writ petition only hinges upon whether the Court is inclined to do so, as a matter of its discretion."Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) does not, in terms, impose any limitation or restraint on the exercise of power to issue writs, which turns on entertainability (discretion) and not maintainability," he said.Justice Nias remarked that the Division Bench had overlooked caselaws supporting this view when it decided to quash the single-judge's second interim order and direct him to reconsider the matter."All these judgments were overlooked by the Division Bench while passing orders in W.A.No.2076/2025, virtually directing the Single Judge to give additional justifications." Justice Nias said..Notably, Justice Nias opined that such repeated interference by the Division Bench virtually amounted to asking the single-judge to keep considering the matter until the single judge reached a conclusion that was acceptable to the Division Bench."The back-to-back directions to consider the maintainability amount to virtually directing the single judge to decide until the result is acceptable to the Division Bench. The said direction is destructive of judicial comity and contrary to the very structure of intra-court appeals. The Division Bench, therefore, has traveled far beyond the legitimate bounds of intra-court appellate scrutiny, totally contrary to the Larger Bench decision of this Court and against the Division Bench judgments that directly dealt with the very same issue," Justice Nias held..He further highlighted that the primary purpose of the legal system was to resolve disputes efficiently and not to create multiple litigations and drag them endlessly."The raison d'être of law and of courts is to secure finality in disputes by reducing the multiplicity of proceedings, a cause which leads to a proliferation of litigations, strikes at the heart of that principle," the judge noted, before eventually requesting that a Larger Bench of the Court examine the question raised in this case regarding the limits of intra-court appeals..The petitioners were represented by advocates Thajuddeen EB, Arthur B George, PA Mohammed Aslam, Ramshad KR, Muhammed Riswan KA, Midhun Mohan, Fidil V John, and Kiran NarayananThe bank was represented by advocates ASP Kurup, Sadchith P Kurup, CP Anil Raj, Siva Suresh, B Sreedevi, and Athira Vijayan..[Read Order]