IMPORTANT POINT
Writ petitions challenging actions under SARFAESI Act are not maintainable if alternative statutory remedies are available.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

1. This intra-court appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7213 of 2025, challenging the judgment dated 04.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner against the measures taken by the respondents under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’) was closed holding that the appellant-petitioner has to take recourse against the order under challenge under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

2. The appellant availed a vehicle loan of Rs.26,50,000/- from the 1^st respondent Bank, by offering the same vehicle as collateral security. The total amount that had to be repaid by the appellant was Rs.32,02,260/- by way of 48 monthly instalments. However, the repayment of the loan was defaulted after July 2024. As per Ext.P3 Bank Statement dated 25.10.2024, the appellant had paid a total sum of Rs.29,28,281/- to the said loan till July 2024. According to the appellant, he was not informed by the bank about any further steps taken by it to convert the loan account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). The appellant was not served with any notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. However, later the appellant came to know that the respondents approached the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta, with a petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and thereafter forcefully took possession of the vehicle in the absence of the appellant with the help of the Advocate Commissioner appointed from the Court and also the Police. The appellant challenged the act of the respondents before the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing Securitization Application No.812 of 2024. By Ext.P6 order, the tribunal passed an order of interim stay of all further coercive action against the secured asset. Thereafter, the appellant approached this Court with the writ petition.

3. The 2^nd respondent Authorised Officer of the Bank filed a counter affidavit dated 19.03.2025 in the writ petition producing therewith Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) documents. The 2^nd respondent has further filed an additional affidavit dated 08.04.2025 in the writ petition. Along with I.A.No.1 of 2025, the respondents produced Exts.R2C to R2E documents in the writ petition.

4. After hearing both sides and appreciating the materials on record, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition as said above. The operative portion of that judgment reads thus;

“4. In view of the above, the challenge of the petitioner against the measures taken under the provisions of SARFAESI Act has to be made in terms of Section 17 of the Act. Without prejudice to the said right of the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, this writ petition is closed, making it clear that all the contentions taken by the petitioner in this case are left open. To enable the petitioner to avail of the same, all further coercive steps against the petitioner will stand deferred for three weeks.”

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the appellant was in darkness about the steps taken by the respondent Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, and hence, challenging that order, the appellant approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The conversion of the loan into NPA by the respondent Bank itself is wrong. However, the appellant was unaware of the steps taken by the bank either under Section 13(4) or under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, till his vehicle was taken possession by the respondents.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would argue that, admittedly, the appellan