Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 23769
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
SAHIDA C. – Appellant
Versus
CANARA BANK – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 47850 OF 2025
Important Points
Subject
Civil - Writ Petition
Act Referred
Headnote
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.M.R.REENA, SRIP.S.SUJETH
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges an action under sarfaesi act. (Para 1) |
| 2. respondent argues for alternative remedy before drt. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court observes established precedents against writ petitions. (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
It is aggrieved by the coercive action taken by the respondent 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 respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed entertaining this writ petition and granting the reliefs to the petitioner since, she has an an efficacious alternative remedy before the DRT.
4. I find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. 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 petitioner to avail the statutory remedy.
