Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 26107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
MATHUKUTTY K. C. – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, FEDERAL BANK LTD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 13598 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.M.RETHEESHKUMAR, SHRI.MUHAMED JUNAID V.
For the Respondents: SRI. P. PAULOCHAN ANTONY, SC
Writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings not entertainable due to efficacious DRT remedy.
Headnote:Under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act'), the petitioner challenged coercive measures initiated by the respondent bank. Essential facts involve notices under Section 13(2) and related proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. The court found that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised where an efficacious alternative remedy exists before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The primary issue was whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition against SARFAESI proceedings. The court relied on Apex Court precedents holding that such petitions are not maintainable due to the availability of statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT, emphasizing the ratio that writs must not be entertained in such cases. The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to pursue remedies before the DRT.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges sarfaesi coercive actions. (Para 1) |
| 2. parties heard; respondents urge alternative remedy. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. writs against sarfaesi not entertained; drt remedy available. (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.
