SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 26502

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. Balakrishnan, J
Jose – Appellant
Versus
Irinjalakuda Town Co-operative Bank – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 4731 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: JITHIN BABU A, ARUN SAMUEL, ANOOD JALAL K.J., DONA MATHEW
For the Respondents: DEVAPRASANTH.P.J., SMINI JOSE

Writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings not entertainable due to efficacious alternative remedy before Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Headnote:Under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act'), petitioners challenged coercive recovery measures by the respondent bank. Essential facts involve notices issued under the Act leading to possession threats. The court found that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked due to availability of alternative remedy. Key issue framed as whether writ petition against SARFAESI proceedings is maintainable when efficacious remedy exists before Debts Recovery Tribunal. Ratio decidendi relies on Supreme Court precedents holding such petitions non-entertainable, emphasizing statutory remedy as mandatory. Writ petition dismissed without prejudice to pursue remedy before Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Table of Content
1. petition challenges sarfaesi coercive actions. (Para 1)
2. parties heard; respondent urges drt remedy. (Para 2 , 3)
3. supreme court precedents bar writ; petition dismissed. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 7th day of April, 2026 It is aggrieved by the coercive steps taken by 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 petitioners. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed entertaining this writ petition and granting the reliefs to the petitioners since, they have an efficacious alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

4. 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 Debts Recovery Tribunal.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions and right of the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top