Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not entertainable against SARFAESI proceedings due to efficacious DRT remedy under Section 17.

The petitioner has filed W.P.(C)No.42912 of 2025, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of mandamus commanding 1^st respondent Union Bank of India to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 representation dated 09.05.2025 and grant at least 12 equated monthly instalments, after hearing the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, before any coercive proceedings are undertaken by the bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

2. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 26.03.2026, dismissed the writ petition, without prejudice to the contentions and right of the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy. Paragraphs 3, 4 and also the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;

“3. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent 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 1^st respondent. 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] andPHR 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.”

3. Challenging the judgment dated 26.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge, the appellant–petitioner is before this Court in this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of theKerala High Court Act, 1958.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner would submit that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition without properly considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, even without granting a breathing time to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1strespondent bank would point out that the total amount outstanding as on 26.03.2026 in the cash credit facility availed by the appellant-petitioner comes to Rs.50,05,750/-. The 3rdrespondent had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.18220 of 2025, which was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment dated 19.05.2025. Thereafter, the 4threspondent filed W.P.(C)No.23285 of 2025, which was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment dated 27.06.2025. On account of the default committed by the borrowers in payment of the monthly installments, the bank proceeded with the coercive steps under the SARFAESI Act, which cannot be interfered with in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. 6. In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110], a Two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that if the 1strespondent guarantor had any tangible grievance against the notice issued underSection 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act or the action taken underSection 14, then he could have availed remedy by filing an application underSection 17(1) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The expression ‘any person’ used in (1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under (4) or . Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders underSec