The High Court will not entertain writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings unless exceptional circumstances justify intervention, and parties must exhaust statutory remedies available for debt recovery.

JUDGMENT :

MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.

1. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.23397 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 07.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing that writ petition.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the appellant availed a business loan of Rs.30/- lakhs from the 1^st respondent bank and later renewed it to Rs.40/- lakhs in March 2020. Due to COVID-19 lockdown and ensuing financial crisis, repayments were disrupted, and the account was declared as Non Performing Asset (for short ‘NPA’). On 11.02.2025, the appellant received Ext.P1 letter issued by the respondent Bank granting One Time Settlement Scheme (for short ‘OTS’) facility to the appellant at a total sum of Rs.57,83,160/-. Simultaneously Bank had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the properties mortgaged for loans availed by the appellant. The appellant was then constrained to approach this Court seeking deferment of possession proceeding eliciting procedural violations under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’) by filing W.P.(C) No.11518 of 2025 and the same got disposed of vide Ext.P2 judgment dated 05.06.2025 with directions to pay Rs.5/- lakhs and pursue remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The appellant is ready to pay Rs.5/- lakhs and settle dues within 60 days, if OTS is revived. The appellant submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 17.06.2025 to the 3^rd respondent. Though vide Ext.P4 letter dated 02.04.2025, the 3^rd respondent positively recommended OTS revival to the Bank, no decision has been taken by the Bank. Hence, the appellant filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation dated 17.06.2025 submitted by the petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to revive and re-consider the OTS facility granted to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 and permit the petitioner to settle the dues under the said OTS scheme;

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate order directing the 1^st respondent Bank to adjust the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- contemplated in Ext.P2 judgment towards OTS facility, if revived.

(iv) Stay all further coercive proceedings including dispossession proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the SARFAESI Act in respect of the loan accounts in question, pending final decision on the OTS.”

3. In the writ petition, on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, a statement dated 28.06.2025 was filed by the learned Standing Counsel, opposing the relief sought for in the writ petition and producing therewith Annexure R2(a) to R2(e) documents.

4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as said above. Paragraphs 2 to 5 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus:

“2. As far as Ext.P1 is concerned, the same was issued on 11.02.2025, granting OTS facility and directing the petitioner to pay the same before 28.02.2025, which admittedly has not been complied with. There cannot be any direction issued by this Court extending the time to comply with the OTS facility.

3. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.17428 of 2024, disposed of by Ext.R2(a) judgment on 07.06.2024, taking note of