Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 26501
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
ANANTHA NARAYANAN – Appellant
Versus
YES BANK LIMITED – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3943 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN, SRI.SUBIN K SUDHEER, SHRI.AMAL BABY, SHRI.AJAY GOPAL, SHRI.NANDUKRISHNA D., SMT.ANJALI NARAYANAN, SMT.AISWARYA, SHRI.ARJUN P ASHOK KUMAR
For the Respondents: SHRI.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY, SHRI. G.VISWANATHAN, SHRI.SREEJITH K.
Writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings not entertainable due to efficacious DRT remedy.
Headnote:The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) provides for enforcement of security interests. Petitioners challenged coercive measures taken under the SARFAESI Act. The court determined that writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings should not be entertained due to availability of alternative remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The primary issue was whether the writ petition should be entertained against SARFAESI actions. The court relied on Apex Court decisions holding that aggrieved parties have an efficacious remedy before the DRT, emphasizing statutory remedies over writ jurisdiction in such matters. The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the petitioners' right to pursue statutory remedies.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges sarfaesi coercive actions. (Para 1) |
| 2. parties heard; respondents urge drt remedy. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. writ dismissed favoring drt statutory remedy. (Para 4) |
Dated this the 07th 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 petitioners.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners, since they have 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 petitioners to avail the statutory remedy.
