Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 26106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
AHAMEDSHAMEEMKAKKAT – Appellant
Versus
FEDERAL BANK LTD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 13475 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.K.SREEJITH, SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH, SHRI.GOPINATH P.
For the Respondents: SRI. SUNIL SHANKER, SC
Writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings not entertainable due to efficacious DRT remedy.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged coercive measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act'). The court considered the availability of an alternative remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The court found that writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings should not be entertained due to the efficacious statutory remedy. The respondents opposed the petition citing Supreme Court precedents framing the issue as whether writ jurisdiction should be invoked when DRT remedy exists. The court relied on Apex Court decisions holding that SARFAESI matters must be addressed through DRT. The writ petition was dismissed without prejudice to pursue DRT remedies.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges sarfaesi coercive actions. (Para 1) |
| 2. parties heard; respondents urge drt remedy. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. writs not entertained per apex court; petition dismissed. (Para 4) |
Dated this the 08th day of April, 2026 J U D G M E N T It is aggrieved by the coercive steps taken by the respondents 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 counsel for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents 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 respondents. 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.
