Justice Mohammed Nias CP of the Kerala High Court questioned repeated interference by a Division Bench in his interim orders, calling it destructive of judicial comity. He has now sought clarity from a Larger Bench on the limits of intra-court appeals.
A recent judgment of the Kerala High Court has highlighted a clash between a Single-Judge Bench and a Division Bench over interim orders, raising an important question on the limits of intra-court appeals. The case has now been referred for consideration by a Larger Bench to bring clarity on the scope of such appeals.
Justice Mohammed Nias CP, who was dealing with the matter as a Single Judge, expressed strong concerns about the Division Bench repeatedly setting aside his interim orders.
According to him, this kind of
“back-to-back directions to reconsider the matter was not good for the judicial system and exceeded the scope of intra-court appeals.”
The Judge further pointed out that this was not the first time such conflicts had happened. Disputes between Single Judges and Division Benches in appeals filed against interim orders have arisen earlier as well.
Justice Nias has therefore sought clarity from a Larger Bench. He observed:
“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 case relates to 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, Justice Nias had granted an interim stay on the recovery proceedings.
The bank immediately challenged this order before a Division Bench, which set it aside on the ground that the Single Judge had not given reasons for the stay.
When the matter came back, Justice Nias passed a more detailed interim stay order on August 18. However, the bank again appealed, and the Division Bench once again interfered, holding that the Single Judge had not properly examined the issue of whether the writ petition was maintainable.
When the matter was listed before Justice Nias for the third time, he strongly remarked that there were already several judgments that confirmed that writ petitions are always maintainable because Article 226 gives plenary jurisdiction.
He explained:
“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 added that the Division Bench overlooked settled law while setting aside his orders:
“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 expressed his concern that such repeated interference was damaging to judicial discipline. He stated:
“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.”
He also reminded that the basic objective of law and courts is to end disputes and not prolong them unnecessarily.
As he noted:
“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 petitioners in this case were represented by advocates Thajuddeen EB, Arthur B George, PA Mohammed Aslam, Ramshad KR, Muhammed Riswan KA, Midhun Mohan, Fidil V John, and Kiran Narayanan.
The Union Bank of India was represented by advocates ASP Kurup, Sadchith P Kurup, CP Anil Raj, Siva Suresh, B Sreedevi, and Athira Vijayan.
The matter will now go before the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court for consideration by a Larger Bench, which is expected to bring clarity on the powers of Division Benches while hearing intra-court appeals against interim orders of Single Judges.
Case Title:
[M/S Grids Engineers and Contractors v. Union Bank of India & Anr]
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Elgar Parishad-Maoist Case
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
