SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 22614

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
JELITTA PUBLICITY – Appellant
Versus
RELIANCE HOME FINANCE LTD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 12412 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT, SHRI.AKHIL GEORGE, SHRI.EMIL SAJU

Writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings dismissed as alternative remedies exist under the DRT as per established judicial precedent.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The judgment addresses the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act'). Facts of the Case: Petitioners challenge coercive actions under SARFAESI Act.

Findings of Court:
Writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings not entertained; aggrieved persons have alternative remedy.

Issues: The court questions the entertainability of writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court's consistent stance is highlighted that alternative and efficacious remedies must be pursued before the DRT.

Result: This writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions and right of the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy.

Table of Content
1. challenge to coercive action under the sarfaesi act expressed by petitioners. (Para 1 , 2)
2. writ petitions against sarfaesi proceedings considered inadmissible. (Para 3)

P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J .…………………………................................

W.P.(C)No. 12412 of 2026 ….........................................................

Dated this the 27th day of March 2026 JUDGMENT 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. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners on admission.

3. The Honourable Apex Court in a catena of decisions including the decisions inPhoenix 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 DRT.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top