A writ petition is unmaintainable when an efficacious remedy exists under the SARFAESI Act.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner has taken a housing loan for Rs.15 lakhs from the 1^st respondent payable in 30 years. Though there was initial repayment, default occurred and the Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act by issuing notice under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act . Thereafter, they approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 and the Bank has taken physical possession on 21.1.2026.

2. It is submitted in the counter affidavit itself that after the Bank had taken physical possession of the property, the writ petitioner has trespassed into the property and repossessed it unlawfully. The respondent has also a contention that the writ petition is not maintainable because of the efficacious remedy available to the petitioner under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT. The petitioner has not availed such remedy and therefore the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and taking note of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in South Indian Bank Ltd v. Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311] , I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition and the same is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the DRT under Section 17 .

Sd/-