The court will not intervene in financial disputes under Article 226 if alternative statutory remedies exist.

P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

….....................................

W.P.(C)No.48200 of 2026 …...........................................................

Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2026 J U D G M E N T It is aggrieved by the coercive action taken by the respondents 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 petitioners.

2. When this writ petition came up for admission on

19.12.2025, this Court had passed the following interim order:-

“The learned standing counsel takes notice for the respondents and submits that the loan in question is a cash credit facility availed by the 1st petitioner, and that the outstanding amount as on today, i.e., 19.12.2025, comes to ₹1,45,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 189 of 2024, wherein this Court directed the respondent Bank to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner for payment of the outstanding amounts and to pass appropriate orders thereon. Considering the fact that the outstanding amount exceeds ₹1 crore, I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to remit a sum of ₹40 lakhs within a period of one month as a condition precedent for deferring the taking of physical possession of the secured asset. Post on

16.01.2026.”

3. Today, when this matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have not complied with the interim order and has not remitted the amount as ordered. 4. In the light of the said submission and considering the fact that the remedy of the petitioners is to approach the DRT by filing appropriate applications, I am not inclined to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this case.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions and the right of the petitioners to avail the alternative statutory remedy.