The court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, asserting that the remedy lies in the Debts Recovery Tribunal when a petitioner defaults on a loan.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2026)

The petitioner had availed financial assistance from the 1^st respondent Bank in the nature of a business loan. Upon default in repayment, the petitioner was served with a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 . Thereafter, the respondent Bank issued a notice under Section 13(4) of the Act. Consequently, the Advocate Commissioner issued a notice stating that physical possession of the property would be taken on any day within 15 days from 06.12.2025. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

2. On 19.12.2025, this Court granted an interim order staying the coercive steps against the petitioner on condition that the petitioner remits Rs.2 lakhs within one month. It is submitted that the said order has not been complied with.

In such circumstances, the remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in South Indian Bank Ltd v. Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311] .

The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

SD/-