Writ petitions under Article 226 not maintainable against private scheduled banks' SARFAESI actions; borrowers must exhaust Section 17 remedy before Debts Recovery Tribunal; High Courts cannot direct loan rescheduling or stay coercive steps.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The respondents in W.P.(C).No.3583 of 2026 have filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 05.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, which was one filed by the respondents herein-petitioners, who availed financial assistance from the 1^st appellant DCB Bank Ltd., in the year 2017, by mortgaging 2.36 Ares of property comprised in Sy.No.568/1, Re-Sy.No.581/9-3, Block No.22 of Amballur Village, along with a residential building situated therein, with building No.5/533-A, covered by document No.1427/2017 dated 13.09.2017 of the Sub Registrar Office, Mulanthuruthy. Since the respondents-borrowers defaulted payment of the monthly instalments, the bank classified the loan account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), and proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), which had resulted in the issuance of Ext.P1 notice dated 25.04.2025, under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act; Ext.P2 possession notice dated 14.07.2025; and Ext.P3 notice dated 19.01.2026 issued by the Advocate Commissioner, pursuant to the order dated 10.10.2025 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, in M.C.No.973 of 2025, in an application filed by the Bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, seeking assistance of the Court to take physical possession of the secured asset. In the writ petition, the petitioners have sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 notice dated 25.04.2025 and Ext.P2 possession notice dated 14.07.2025 issued by the bank through its Authorised Officer; a writ of mandamus commanding the bank and its Authorised Officer to consider Ext.P4 representation dated 20.01.2026 made by the petitioners with a request for regularisation of the loan account by affording an opportunity to remit the overdue amount in 20 installments together with regular monthly installments, and not to proceed with taking possession of the residential property as per Ext.P3 notice dated 19.01.2026 issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (MP/MLA), Ernakulam in M.C.No.973 of 2025; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1strespondent bank to regularise the loan account by remitting the overdue amount in 20 installments, together with the regular installments; and also a writ of mandamus commanding the 1strespondent bank to provide the details sought for in relief ‘(d)’ relating to the loan account.

2. On 30.01.2026, when the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Single Judge granted an interim order deferring the coercive steps against the petitioners for a period of six weeks, on condition that the petitioners remit an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- within a period of one month. The said interim order was complied with by the petitioners. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge, by the judgment dated 05.03.2026, disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioners an opportunity to pay the overdue amount of Rs.10,39,659/- in 18 equal monthly instalments, commencing from 05.04.2026, and the subsequent instalments payable on or before the 5thday of every succeeding month, along with the regular monthly instalments. All coercive steps are directed to be kept in abeyance, so to enable the petitioners to repay