The court upheld that the statutory remedy through the Debts Recovery Tribunal must be pursued rather than adjudicating disputed facts under Article 226.

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

W.P. (C) No. 2753 of 2026 ========================

Dated 02^nd day of March 2026 JUDGMENT The petitioner had availed a loan in the year 2017 for an amount of ₹55,00,000/- 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 23.01.2026 directing the petitioner to remit Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) 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 23.01.2026 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/-