Intra-Court Appeal Maintainable Against Ex Parte Ad Interim Orders Affecting Statutory Remedy Rights: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala: The Kerala High Court has authoritatively settled a significant procedural question in writ jurisdiction, holding that an intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, is maintainable against an ex parte ad interim order or any order that clearly affects the right of a party to pursue its statutory remedy.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. delivered the ruling on March 4, 2026, while disposing of an intra-court reference and a connected writ appeal arising from a SARFAESI dispute.

M/s GRIDS Engineering and Contractors had filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court challenging an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petition challenged the order as being without jurisdiction. The Single Judge initially granted an interim stay, which the Division Bench set aside in a writ appeal on the ground that the order was not supported by reasons. Subsequently, a second interim order was passed, which was again set aside by a Division Bench for failure to adequately discuss the judgments on maintainability cited by the Bank.

Instead of reconsidering the matter in accordance with the directions of the Division Bench, the Single Judge proceeded to refer the matter to a Larger Bench on the question of the scope of intra-court appeals under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, particularly in relation to interim orders. The Bank filed a writ appeal challenging this order of reference. Notably, during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties arrived at a settlement and the loan account was closed by the Bank on November 11, 2025.

The Division Bench examined two principal questions: first, whether the reference made by the Single Judge to a Larger Bench was legally competent; and second, whether an intra-court writ appeal is maintainable under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act against interim or ad interim orders affecting the rights of parties.

The Court strongly emphasised the doctrine of binding precedent and the imperative of judicial discipline. Relying on the Constitution Bench decisions in Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik and Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that a bench of lesser strength cannot disagree with a larger bench and that the only permissible course, in case of doubt, is to refer the matter upward through the proper channel. The Court observed that the Single Judge, instead of complying with the directions of the Division Bench, had effectively assumed appellate jurisdiction over the Division Bench’s orders, which was contrary to judicial discipline and decorum.

The Court noted that the Single Judge had criticised the Division Bench judgment, which was against judicial propriety. Relying on Shabna Abdulla v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that a breach of discipline gravely impacts the credibility of the judicial institution and encourages chance litigation.

The Court held that the parameters laid down by the Full Bench in K.S. Das v. State of Kerala do not permit a Single Judge to make a reference to a Division Bench or a Larger Bench in the circumstances present in the instant case. Relying on Marykutty Joseph v. State of Kerala and Kannappan v. RTO, Ernakulam, the Court held that a reference is warranted only when the correctness of an earlier Division Bench decision is doubted, conflicting views are expressed by two Division Benches, or the state of law has become uncertain—none of which were present here. Accordingly, the reference was held to be incompetent and was not entertained.

The Court held that under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, an intra-court appeal is maintainable against orders that substantially affect or touch upon the rights and liabilities of parties, even if such orders are interim or ad interim in nature. Relying on the Full Bench conclusions in K.S. Das (supra) and the concurring judgment of Justice Varghese Kalliath, the Court affirmed that the appellate powers of the Division Bench under Section 5(1) can be exercised where discretionary orders are without jurisdiction, contrary to law, perverse, or cause serious prejudice to parties such that status quo ante would be difficult to restore.

On the writ appeal filed by the Bank, the Court dismissed it as not maintainable, observing that it is for the reference court to decide whether the reference should be answered or declined, and the appellant bank had no say in that regard.

Appearances:
For Petitioners: Adv. E.B. Thajuddeen, Adv. Arthur B. George, Adv. P.A. Mohammed Aslam, Adv. Ramshad K.R., Adv. Muhammed Riswan K.A., Adv. Midhun Mohan, Adv. Fidil V. John, Adv. Kiran Narayanan, Adv. P. Sanjay

For Respondents/Appellants (Bank): Adv. A.S.P. Kurup, Adv. Sadchith P. Kurup, Adv. C.P. Anil Raj, Adv. Siva Suresh, Adv. B. Sreedevi, Adv. Athira Vijayan

Amicus Curiae: Adv. Raja Kannan

Case Title: M/s GRIDS Engineers and Contractors & Another v. Union Bank of India & Another

[Read Judgment]