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) 26558

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
JOSE – Appellant
Versus
IRINJALAKUDA TOWN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. 55 – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 28477 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.ABRAHAM MATHAN, SRI.FREDY FRANCIS
For the Respondents: SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J., SMT.SMINI JOSE

Writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings not entertainable due to efficacious DRT remedy.

Headnote:The petitioners challenged coercive measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act'). The court noted the availability of an alternative remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The court found merit in the respondent's contention that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked due to the efficacious statutory remedy. Issues framed included whether writ relief could be granted against SARFAESI proceedings given the alternative forum. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that writ petitions under Article 226 against SARFAESI actions are not maintainable when DRT remedy exists, emphasizing the statutory mechanism's adequacy. The writ petition was dismissed without prejudice to pursue remedies before the DRT.

Table of Content
1. petitioners challenge sarfaesi coercive action. (Para 1)
2. parties heard; respondent urges drt remedy. (Para 2 , 3)
3. writ dismissed favoring drt per precedents. (Para 4 , 5)

…..................................... W.P.(C)No.28477 of 2025 …...................................................... Dated this the 7th day of April, 2026 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 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SARFAESI Act' for short), 2002 this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the granting of 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 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 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.

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