The High Court's intervention in matters governed by the SARFAESI Act requires adherence to statutory procedures and primarily rests with the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

Respondents in W.P.(C)No.7170 of 2026 are before this Court in this writ appeal filed invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the interim order dated 24.02.2026 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, which was one filed by the respondent herein-petitioner, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief;

“i) to issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction to the respondents to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1.”

2. The document marked as Ext.P1 is a copy of the notice dated 03.02.2026 issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta, in M.C.No.567 of 2025, in a proceeding initiated by the appellants- respondents under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), seeking assistance of the court to take physical possession of the secured asset.

3. On 24.02.2026, when W.P.(C)No.7170 of 2026 came up for admission, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order, which reads thus;

“Since the Bank is proposing to take physical possession of the property, the coercive steps against the petitioner shall be deferred for a period of six weeks on condition that the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.50 lakhs within a period of one month from today. It is made clear that if the payment is not made, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.”

4. On 19.03.2026, the appellants-respondents have filed this writ appeal challenging the aforesaid order dated 24.02.2026 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

5. On 23.03.2026, when this writ appeal came up for admission, after arguing for some time, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants-respondents sought an adjournment.

6. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants-respondents would submit that the respondents have filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(C)No.7170 of 2026, raising the question of maintainability of the writ petition, in view of the statutory remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. They have also filed an interlocutory application in W.P.(C)No.7170 of 2026 to vacate the interim order dated

24.02.2026, and the said application now stands listed before the learned Single Judge on 30.03.2026.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner would submit that he is not in receipt of a physical copy of the said counter affidavit and the interlocutory application filed in W.P.(C)No.7170 of 2026 by the respondents.

8. InSouth Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip [(2023) 17 SCC 311], in the context of the challenge made against the notices issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the Apex Court reiterated the settled position of law on the interference of the High Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India in commercial matters, where an effective and efficacious alternative forum has been constituted through a statute. In the said decision, the Apex Court took judicial notice of the fact that certain High Courts continue to interfere in such matters, leading to a regular supply of cases before the Apex Court. The Apex Court reiterated that a writ of certiorari is to be issued over a decision when the court finds that the process does not conform to the law or the statute. In other words, courts are not expected to substitute themselves with the decision-making authority while finding fault wit