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) 26831

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
MUHAMMED SULFI – Appellant
Versus
THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN RESERVE BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 13408 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.R.REJI, SHRI.M.V.THAMBAN, SMT.THARA THAMBAN, SHRI.B.BIPIN, SHRI.ARUN BOSE, SMT.JEENA A.V., SHRI.ARJUN R., SHRI.GAUTHAM R KARTHA, SHRI.SHAJI J.
For the Respondents: SHRI. M. SASINDRAN, SC

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

Headnote:The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) provides for enforcement of security interest by banks. Petitioner challenged coercive recovery measures under Section 13(4) SARFAESI Act following notice of outstanding dues. Court found alternative remedy available before Debts Recovery Tribunal. Key issue: entertainability of writ petition against SARFAESI proceedings. Apex Court in multiple decisions held writs not maintainable due to efficacious statutory remedy under SARFAESI Act before DRT, as affirmed in cited precedents. Writ petition dismissed without prejudice to pursue remedy before Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Table of Content
1. petition challenges sarfaesi coercive steps. (Para 1)
2. writs against sarfaesi dismissed for drt remedy. (Para 2 , 3)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of April, 2026 It is aggrieved by the coercive steps taken by the respondent-bank 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 on admission.

3. 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 petitioner 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