High Courts should not interfere under Article 226 in matters involving the SARFAESI Act when alternative statutory remedies are available, emphasizing judicial restraint.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28510 of 2025 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing that writ petition.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, in the year 2015, the appellant’s wife, Mrs. Princy, as borrower, along with the appellant’s father, Late Daniel Varghese, as guarantor, availed a credit facility of ₹75 lakhs from Canara Bank, Perumbavoor Branch (‘the Bank’ in short) for the purpose of operating a petroleum outlet under the name and style of M/s Vandanathil Petroleum, which is a sole proprietorship concern. As security for the said loan, Late Daniel Varghese had mortgaged 1.16 acres of land with all improvements in Re. Sy. No-112/1, situated at Arackappady village, in Kunnathunadu Taluk, Ernakulam District. But due to a huge financial crisis, there occurred a default in payment of the credit facility, and the account of appellant’s wife turned Non Performing Asset (‘NPA’ in short), and the Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (‘ SARFAESI ACT ’ in short), against the appellant’s wife and the property owned by the guarantor, which was later inherited by his legal heirs. The appellant has filed Securitisation Application as S.A.No.479/2025 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam (the ‘Tribunal’ in short), under Section 17 of the SARFAESI ACT, 2002, challenging all actions taken by the Bank, including Exhibit P1 possession notice dated 08.07.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed in M.C.No.368 of 2025 before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The Tribunal adjourned the matter to 08.08.2025 to enable the Bank to file a counter-affidavit, without passing any interim order. Aggrieved by the refusal of the Tribunal to grant an interim stay on the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI ACT, the appellant filed an appeal along with the stay petition, delay condonation petition and urgent petition on 30.07.2025 under Section 18 of the SARFAESI ACT, 2002, before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (‘DRAT’ in short). The diary number of the appeal is 1516 of 2025. Claiming that the appellant and his family are in imminent danger of being displaced from their residence pending the appeal before the DRAT. Therefore, the appellant filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“i) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext. P1.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to maintain the status quo on the scheduled property till any orders are passed in the petition for waiver and stay are passed in the Appeal filed by the petitioner, temporally numbered as Diary no. 1516 of 2025, on the files of the Hon’ble Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai or till final order is passed in I.A no. 2774 of 2025 in SA no. 479 of 2025 and for a reasonable time thereafter for availing appeal remedy if warranted”.

3. By the judgment dated 12.08.2025 the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of that judgment read thus:

“2. Earlier, the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No.32913/2022, which was dismissed by judgment dated 08.10.2024, rejecting the challenge against the order dated 08.09.2022 passed in RA(S.A.) No.153/2018 by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.

3. The petitioner had preferred W.A. No. 1893/2024, in which there was a direction to pay 25% of the liability by way of an interim order dated 11.02.2025, but no