The petitioner's remedy to contest disputed loan recovery lies with the Debts Recovery Tribunal, not the High Court.

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

W.P. (C) No.46678 of 2025 ========================

Dated 03^rd day of March 2026 JUDGMENT The petitioner had availed two loans (housing loan and personal loan) from the respondent Bank. Subsequently, the petitioner 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 16.12.2025 directing the petitioner to remit Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) within one month, and coercive steps were deferred. On 22.01.2026, the time for compliance was extended till 05.02.2026. On 06.02.2026, the petitioner remitted Rs.50,000/- and was granted a further period of two weeks to pay the balance amount. Thereafter, on 23.02.2026, time was extended till

27.02.2026 for remittance of the remaining amount.

3. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount directed to be remitted as per the order dated 16.12.2025 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 as well as the above decision, this Writ Petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioner’s liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal .

Sd/-