IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. Balakrishnan, J
Sudheer Kareem – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Canara Bank Limited – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 12877 OF 2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges sarfaesi coercive actions. (Para 1) |
| 2. parties argue alternative drt remedy. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. writs not maintainable; drt remedy preferred. (Para 4) |
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, he has 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 in Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and Others [2022 KHCOnLine 6040], South Indian Bank Ltd. (M/s.) v. NaveenMathew 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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.