Courts should respect statutory routes for recovery before entertaining writ petitions in commercial matters, emphasizing the efficacy of specialized tribunals under SARFAESI.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The appellants are respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C)No. 36515 of 2025 filed by the respondent-petitioner, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 notice dated 25.09.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam in M.C.No.643 of 2025; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay the overdue amount in convenient monthly instalments, after deducting penal interest and hidden charges.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner availed agricultural loan for a sum of Rs.1.29 Crores from the Palai Branch of Union Bank of India, offering as security 69.83 Ares of land in Re-survey No.11/3 (old Survey No.1272/4, 1272/5) in Block No.31 of the Kadanadu Village in Meenachil Taluk in Kottayam District, along with a building situated therein. The monthly instalment was Rs.2 lakhs. Since the petitioner defaulted payment of monthly instalments, the loan account was classified as Non Performing Asset (NPA), and the Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), through its Authorised Officer. For seeking the assistance of the court to take possession of the secured asset, the Bank and its Authorised Officer moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam, invoking the provisions under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, which had resulted in the issuance of Ext.P1 notice dated 25.09.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the court, which is under challenge in the writ petition.

3. In the writ petition, the respondents, i.e., the Bank and its Authorised Officer, filed a counter affidavit dated 03.10.2025, opposing the reliefs sought for. In the counter affidavit, a specific contention was raised as to the question of maintainability of the writ petition, in view of the statutory remedy provided under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, citing various decisions of the Apex Court. In the counter affidavit it is pointed out that the loan account was classified as NPA on 29.04.2025. As on 03.10.2025, the total amount outstanding in the loan account comes to Rs.1,95,22,532/-. Regularisation of the loan account is not possible, since the term of the loan is over and also for the reason that by recalling the facility the Bank filed original application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Ernakulam, which is pending consideration.

4. After the filing of the counter affidavit dated 03.10.2025, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order dated 14.10.2025, which reads thus;

“The petitioner is directed to remit Rs.75,00,000/- within one month from today. Till such time, all coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance.

5. On 17.11.2025, when the writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge modified the earlier interim order dated 14.10.2025. The interim order dated 17.11.2025 reads thus;

“The petitioner shall remit Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) today (17.11.2025). The interim order granted on 14.10.2025 is extended till 21.11.2025 to enable the petitioner to have a talk with the Bank along with the prospective buyer.

6. Challenging the order dated 17.11.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.36515 of 2025, the appellants- respondents are before this Court in this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

7. We heard arguments of the learned Standing Counsel for the Union Bank of