Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27584
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
SUNITHA ABHILASH – Appellant
Versus
THE KERALA GRAMIN BANK – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 14867 OF 2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil - Writ Petition
Act Referred
Headnote
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.T.RAGHUNATH, SMT.C.V.RAJALAKSHMI
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges sarfaesi coercive actions. (Para 1) |
| 2. parties heard; respondents urge drt remedy. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court agrees; apex court precedents bar writ. (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
It is aggrieved by the coercive action 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 petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed entertaining this writ petition and granting the reliefs to the petitioner since, she has an efficacious alternative remedy before the DRT.
4. I find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents.
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 petitioner to avail the statutory remedy.
