Writ petitions against private banks are not maintainable when statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act exist, illustrating the separation of judicial authority from statutory mechanisms.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The 1^st respondent in W.P.(C)No.48653 of 2025 has filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the judgment dated 12.01.2026 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, which was one filed by the respondent herein-petitioner, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Bank to grant her 15 installments to pay the defaulted dues and to pay balance equated monthly installments as and when it falls due, thereby regularising the loan account; and a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 possession notice dated 18.12.2025 issued by the 1^st respondent Authorised Officer of the South Indian Bank Ltd.

2. By the judgment dated 12.01.2026, the learned Single Judge disposed of W.P.(C)No.48653 of 2025. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of that judgment read thus;

“2. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank on instructions submits that the overdue amount in the home loan comes to Rs.1,50,000/-. The Bank has no objection in regularizing the home loan account.

3. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, and taking note of the fact that the Bank is proposing to take physical possession of the property and since the Bank has no objection in regularizing the loan account, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

a) The petitioner shall remit the overdue amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) in the home loan, together with any accrued interest, cost and allied charges, in four equated monthly installments, starting from 15.02.2026 and the subsequent installments shall be paid on or before 15^th of every succeeding months.

b) The petitioner shall continue to pay the regular EMIs/installments along with the installments as directed above.

c) In the event of default of any one installment, the respondent Bank shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with law.

d) All coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance to enable the petitioner to repay the entire amount as directed above.

e) As far as the car loan is concerned, the respondents are free to proceed with OS No.15/2026 pending before the Munsiff Court, Wadakkanchery.

3. Challenging the judgment dated 12.01.2026 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.48653 of 2025, the appellant-1^st respondent is before this Court in this writ appeal.

4. We heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-1^st respondent and also the learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner.

5. The issue that requires consideration in this writ appeal is as to whether the impugned judgment dated 12.01.2026 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.48653 of 2025 can be sustained in law.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant-1^st respondent would submit that, as pointed out in paragraph 6 of the statement of facts of the memorandum of writ appeal, South Indian Bank Ltd., through its Authorised Officer, instituted O.S.No.15 of 2026 before the Munsiff Court, Wadakkancherry for realisation of the dues in the car loan availed by the respondent- petitioner. C.S.No.4 of 2026 is instituted before the Commercial Court, Thrissur, for recovery of the dues in the term loan availed by the respondent-petitioner. Initiation of those proceedings necessitated due to the persistent and wilful default committed by the respondent-petitioner in remitting the monthly installments, despite repeated demands and opportunities granted by the B