Court emphasized statutory remedies available against bank proceedings in light of non-compliance with prior court orders.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner availed a loan of Rs.40,00,000/- in the year 2020, for which he has mortgaged his property extending 24.52.0.97 Ares of land in Survey No. 394/2, 395/3 of Kakkulissery Village in Chalakudy Taluk with a House situated therein, wherein the petitioner is residing with his family. 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 26.12.2025, this Court directed the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakh only) within one month from that day. On 13.02.2026, when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the interim order on 26.12.2025 was not complied with and no further extension was granted. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays a weeks’ time for remitting the same which was objected by the learned counsel for the respondent.

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/-