A petitioner must utilize available alternative remedies before challenging tribunal orders in higher courts.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27th day of March, 2026 This original petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P4 order dated 11.02.2026 in I.A.No.167 of 2026 in S.A.No.917 of 2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam.

2. The petitioner is the claim petitioner in I.A.No.167 of 2026 in S.A.No.917 of 2025 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam. The petitioner claims to be a lawfully inducted tenant of the 4^th respondent. The 1^st respondent initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act against respondents 4 to 8 and took possession of the property in which the petitioner is occupying. It is the case of the petitioner that while taking physical possession, the movables kept inside the premises, such as, various types of tiles, belonging to the petitioner were also taken possession by the bank. It is, in such circumstances, the petitioner filed the afore claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking release of the movables. The learned Tribunal, after hearing both sides and considering the materials on record, dismissed the I.A.No.167 of 2026, as per Ext.P4 order dated 11.02.2026. It is challenging Ext.P4 order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3.

4. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner is having an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal, to challenge Ext.P4 order, before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act . The Honourable Apex Court in the decision inSreedhar K vs. M/s.Raus Construction Pvt.Ltd ( 2023 KHC OnLine 6012 ) and a division bench of this Court in the decision in Union of India vs. Alice Ulahannan ( 2025 KHC OnLine 2217 ) have categorically held that, the High Court must not entertain the petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging judgement and order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal since, the aggrieved persons have an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal. In such circumstances, I do no find any reason to entertain this original petition and grant reliefs to the petitioner.

Ergo, this original petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions and right of the petitioner to avail alternative statutory remedy.