The court emphasized the necessity of complying with interim orders and the availability of statutory remedies against bank actions.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner has availed a loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- in the year 2016 from the 2^nd respondent Bank for a period of 10 years. For availing the said loan, the petitioner had mortgaged all part and parcel of the land, having an extent of 10.52 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 182/4A1, 4A3, 183/1B1, 773/1 in Perunadu Village, Ranni Taluk, Pathanamthitta District, as security for the above loan transaction.

2. When there was default in the repayment, the bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings against the petitioner.

3. The present writ petition is filed to allow the petitioner to pay the overdue amount in installments and regularize the loan. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the same and submitted that on 15.01.2026, this Court directed the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) within one month from that day. When the matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner did not comply with the above order. Therefore, no indulgence can be granted to this petitioner.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and taking note of the fact of non-compliance with the interim order as well as the efficacious statutory remedy available as held in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in South Indian Bank Ltd v. Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311] , it is for the petitioner to approach the DRT against the proceedings initiated by the bank. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and it stands dismissed.

Sd/-