SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 20806

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
SAIDALI – Appellant
Versus
THE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 4743 OF 2026



Important Points

Writ petitions against SARFAESI actions should not be entertained due to the availability of alternative remedies.

Subject

Civil - Writ Petition

Act Referred

Headnote

This judgment addresses a writ petition filed by the petitioner, Saidali, challenging the coercive actions of the Urban Co-operative Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The court finds that the petitioner has a sufficient alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal as per established legal precedents. The court reiterates that prevailing judgments assert that writ petitions against SARFAESI actions should not be entertained due to the existence of statutory remedies. Consequently, the petition is dismissed, assuring the petitioner the right to pursue their statutory remedy.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.T.C.SURESH MENON, SHRI.B.DEEPAK, SHRI.BALAKRISHNAN M.
For the Respondents: SMT.JAYASREE K.P., SHRI.JOHN JOSEPH, SHRI.AMAL PARTHASARADHY

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges bank's coercive actions under sarfaesi. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court mentions alternative remedy before debts recovery tribunal. (Para 3)
3. court dismisses writ petition, supporting legal precedent. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19th day of March, 2026 It is aggrieved by the coercive steps taken by respondents 1 and 2 under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SARFAESI Act’ for short), this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, vehemently opposed entertaining this writ petition and granting the reliefs to the petitioner since, he has an efficacious alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

4. The Honourable Apex Court in a catena of decisions including, the decisions in Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and Others [2022 KHC OnLine 6040], South Indian Bank Ltd. (M/s.) v. Naveen Mathew Philip [ 2023 KHC OnLine 6435 ] and PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank [2024 KHC OnLine 6208], have categorically held that writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings must not be entertained since, the aggrieved persons have an alternative and efficacious remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions and right of the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top