High Courts should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 against SARFAESI proceedings when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, even if factual disputes regarding the creditor-borrower relationship are alleged.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna S., J.

The appellants, who are the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.12412 of 2026, filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 27.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the appellants had availed a loan for an amount of Rs.4,95,00,000/- (Four Crores Ninety Five Lakhs Rupees Only) from the 1^st respondent in the year 2016, by executing Exhibit P1 mortgage deed dated 15.06.2016, creating a mortgage by deposit of title deed of the property, for business expansion with a loan tenure of 96 months with floating interest of 14% per annum and Ext.P2 promissory note of the same date in favour of respondents No.1 and 2. Subsequently, respondent No.2, on behalf of respondent No.1 issued Ext.P3 notice dated 23.08.2019 to the 1^st appellant, communicating that the debt due from the appellants, i.e. loan, availed from the 1^st respondent, was assigned and transferred to Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd, vide assignment deed dated 01.03.2019 and respondents No. 3 and 4 were appointed to service the loan account of the appellants from 01.09.2019. While the appellants strongly refuted the authority of the respondents’ no. 3 and 4, by issuing Ext.P4 notice dated 01.09.2021, they issued Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 notices dated 15.09.2022 and 20.03.2023 under Sections 13(2) and 13(4)of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act' for short).

2.1. The appellants further state that meanwhile, on 28.02.2025, respondent No. 6 on behalf of respondent No.5 caused Ext.P7 notice to the appellants claiming that the rights pertaining to the loan of the appellants was transferred to respondent No.5, vide assignment deed dated 09.10.2024 and when the appellants disputed their legal authority, respondent Nos.5 and 6 issued Ext.P8 notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, while Exts.P5 and P6 notices issued by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were subsisting. Since two different and independent entities simultaneously initiated SARFAESI proceedings against the appellants upon the same transaction, the appellants reasonably apprehended fraud and approached the Munsiff Court, Kottayam, vide Ext.P9 suit seeking a declaration of fraud and a temporary injunction, wherein all the respondents appeared, and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed Ext.P11 objection and submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the Munsiff Court. They further preferred Ext.P12 interlocutory application seeking to relegate parties to arbitration. Moreover, respondents Nos. 5 and 6 have taken a contradictory stand on devolution of rights upon them in Exts. P7, P8 and Ext.P9.

2.2. According to the appellants, while the suit was pending before the Munsiff Court, respondents Nos. 5 and 6 made Ext.P14 public notice for sale of the subject matter property by concealing the subsistence of the suit before the civil Court. They subsequently approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam, by instituting Exhibit P16 petition seeking to take possession of the subject matter property by concealing the subsistence of the suit before the civil Court. The advocate commission appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court had issued Exhibit-P15 notice dated 06.03.2026, stating that possession will be taken on 27.03.2026. Till date, the respondents have not produced the