Jurisdiction under Article 226 does not include resolving disputed factual issues regarding financial transactions.

BASANT BALAJI J ======================

W.P. (C) No.47406 of 2025 ========================

Dated 27^th day of January 2026 JUDGMENT The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers:-

1. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or directions calling for records resulting in Exhibit P1 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner and P2 Order of the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri, scrutinize and quash the same and to direct the respondent not to take any further coercive measures under SARFEASI Act and to return the possession of the property to the petitioners.

2. Pass such other orders, interlocutory or otherwise, which are deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice;

3. Dispense with translation of vernacular documents;

and

4. Allow this Writ Petition with costs.

2. The petitioners availed a Cash Credit facility of ₹40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Only) in October 2018 by mortgaging 24 cents of land comprised in Re.Sy. Nos. 129/16, 129/17, 156/9, 154/1 and 156/27 of Cheekode Village, Kondotty Taluk, Malappuram District, as security for the loan. Due to severe financial losses caused by the 2018 floods and the subsequent economic downturn resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioners’ business collapsed, leading to default in repayment of the loan amount. Upon such default, the respondent bank classified the loan account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 01.06.2019 and initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 . Aggrieved by the initiation of SARFAESI proceedings, the petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court.

3. An interim order was passed on 18.12.2025 directing the petitioners to remit Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) within one month, and coercive steps were deferred.

4. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the amount directed to be remitted as per the order dated 18.12.2025 has not been paid.

5. In South Indian Bank Ltd. (M/s.) v. Naveen Mathew Philip [2023 KHC 6435] , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the remedy available to the petitioners to move the Debts Recovery Tribunal is a statutory one, and that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact.

In such circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioners liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Sd/-