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) 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



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.T.RAGHUNATH, SMT.C.V.RAJALAKSHMI

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

Headnote:The petitioner challenged coercive actions under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act'). The court noted the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The Apex Court in multiple decisions held that writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings should not be entertained due to the availability of statutory remedies. Issues framed around maintainability of writ petition under SARFAESI. The court relied on precedents emphasizing alternative remedies as ratio decidendi, dismissing writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to pursue remedies before DRT.

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.

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