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) 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



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.M.R.REENA, SRIP.S.SUJETH

The court affirmed that writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings should not be entertained due to the availability of alternative remedies before the DRT.

Headnote:The petitioner challenges coercive action under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The court emphasizes the availability of an alternative remedy before the DRT as established in precedential rulings. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed, preserving the petitioner's right to pursue statutory remedies.

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.

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