IMPORTANT POINT
Debt Recovery Proceeding – High Court must not entertain petitions under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India challenging Judgment and order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal – Aggrieved persons have efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal.

JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners on admission.

2. This original petition is filed seeking an order to set aside Ext.P15 final order dated 05.03.2026, passed in SA No. 631 of 2025 by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam.

3. The petitioners have challenged the SARFAESI proceedings intiated against them, by filing SA No.631 of 2025, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam. The tribunal after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, dismissed SA No.631 of 2025, on 05.03.2026 as per Ext.P15 order.

4. Admittedly, the petitioners are having an efficacious alternative remedy, to challenge Ext.P15 order by filing an appeal, before the DRAT under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SARFAESI Act’ for short), 2002. The Honourable Apex Court in the decision in Sreedhar K v. M/s. Raus Construction Pvt. Ltd., (2023 KHC OnLine 6012) and a Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Union of India v. Alice Ulahannan (2025 KHC OnLine 2217) have categorically held that, the High Court must not entertain petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgement and order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal since, the aggrieved persons have an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to entertain this original petition and grant reliefs to the petitioners. Ergo, this original petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions and right of the petitioners to avail the alternative statutory remedy.