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) 24459

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
MANOOB. M – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, M/S PNB HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3826 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SAJU J PANICKER, SHRI.KURIAN K JOSE
For the Respondents: SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA, SRI.LEEJOY MATHEW.V.

Writ petitions under SARFAESI Act are not entertained due to availability of efficacious alternative remedies before Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Headnote:The judgment discusses the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, stating that a writ petition was filed due to coercive actions by the respondent. The court found that a petitioner has efficacious remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and thus dismissed the writ petition. The issues centered around alternative legal remedies and the inappropriateness of entertaining the writ against SARFAESI actions, confirming the importance of legal remedy hierarchy. The final decision echoed that the petition is dismissed but preserves the petitioner's rights to statutory remedies.

Table of Content
1. coercive action under sarfaesi act prompted writ petition. (Para 1)
2. court discussed alternative remedies available before debts recovery tribunal. (Para 2 , 3)
3. writ petition dismissed without prejudice to statutory rights of the petitioner. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30th day of March, 2026 It is aggrieved by the coercive steps taken by 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 learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed entertaining this writ petition and granting the reliefs to the petitioner since, he has an efficacious alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

4. 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 Debts Recovery Tribunal.

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