The availability of statutory remedies must be exhausted before invoking Article 226 for disputes involving financial recoveries.

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

W.P. (C) No. 48506 of 2025 ========================

Dated 20^th day of February 2026 JUDGMENT The petitioner had availed a loan from the respondent Bank.

Subsequently, he committed default in repayment of the loan amount as per the agreed terms. In view of the said default, the respondent Bank initiated recovery proceedings against the secured asset under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002. Aggrieved by the measures so initiated by the respondent Bank under the said Act, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

2. An interim order was passed on 26.12.2025 directing the petitioner to remit Rs.75,000/- within one month, and coercive steps were deferred.

3. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount directed to be remitted as per the order dated 26.12.2025 has not been paid.

4. 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 petitioner 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, taking note of the fact of non-compliance of the interim order as well as the efficacious remedy available, this Writ Petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioner’s liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Sd/-