A writ petition cannot be entertained against SARFAESI Act proceedings when an adequate statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is available.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

W.A.No.604 of 2026 is one filed by respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C)No.47710 of 2025, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the interim order dated 05.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.1 of 2026 in that writ petition. The 1^st respondent herein filed the said writ petition, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 therein (appellants in W.A.No.604 of 2026) not to proceed based on Ext.P2 possession notice dated 10.07.2023, Ext.P8 order dated 26.11.2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam in M.C.No.1689 of 2025 and Ext.P12 notice dated 03.12.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner appointed in M.C.No.1689 of 2025, against the petitioner’s property having an extent of 3.75 Ares comprised in Survey No.298/11 in Block No.15 of Thevalakkara Village of Karunagappally Taluk and 5.64 Ares in Re.Sy.No.5/2 and 5/3 in Block No.167 of Kollam East Village of Kollam Taluk in Kollam District, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002 (‘SARFAESI’ Act); a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P8 order dated 26.11.2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam in M.C.No.1689 of 2025; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 therein to allow the petitioner to remit the dues as on date, in fair and equal instalments; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 therein to allow the petitioner to settle the entire loan by One Time Settlement, by excluding penal interest; and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 therein to reconsider and reduce the penal interest and interest rate in respect of the loan transactions referred to in paragraph No.2 of the writ petition.

2. The loan transactions referred to in paragraph No.2 of the statement of facts in W.P.(C)No.47710 of 2025 read thus;

3. On 18.12.2025, when W.P.(C)No.47710 of 2025 came up for admission, the learned Single Judge passed a detailed order, which reads thus;

“Adv. Mohan Jacob George takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. Adv. Mansoor Ali K A appears for the 3rd respondent.

2. On the basis of Ext. P14 agreement dated 20.01.2025, the 3^rd respondent has agreed to purchase the secured asset. Pursuant thereto, a total amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Five Lakhs only) has already been remitted and deposited with the bank, of which Rs.25,00,000/- was paid in March 2025, Rs. 15,00,000/- in August 2025, and Rs. 15,00,000/- in September 2025.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some indulgence from this Court and submits that a further sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- will be paid on or before 15.01.2026. It is also submitted that the 3^rd respondent has agreed to pay the balance amount at the earliest. Therefore, it is prayed that the coercive proceedings against the petitioner may be deferred, failing which irreparable injury and hardship would be caused to the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent-purchaser may back out from the agreement.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank opposes the same and submits that the outstanding amount as on today (18.12.2025) comes to Rs.5 crores eighty lakhs. It is further submitted that the petitioner has paid only Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Five Lakhs only) and, therefore, no indulgence can be granted.

Taking note of the fact that since March 2025, onwards the petitioner has remitted an amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Five Lakhs