High Courts should not interfere under Article 226 in SARFAESI proceedings; statutory remedies must be availed.

JUDGMENT

This is the second round of litigation at the instance of the petitioner, who is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the 1^st respondent under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short the 'SARFAESI Act'). By Ext.P1 judgment dated 18.12.2024 in W.P.(C) No.45188/2024, the petitioner was granted 10 installments to wipe off the dues. Admittedly, the petitioner could not comply with the directions in Ext.P1 judgment. Again seeking indulgence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. The proceedings against the petitioner are under the SARFAESI Act and it is open to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedies available under the Act. In PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank and others [(2024) 6 SCC 579], the Honourable Supreme Court clarified that in SARFAESI matters interference by the High Courts in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could not be justified. In South Indian Bank v. Abdulla Kulukkampara [2024 (6) KLT 695], a Division Bench of this Court referred various decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court pertaining the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in challenges arising from SARFAESI proceedings and held that in such cases interference is not justified.

In view of the said position of law, I find no reason to entertain this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the Competent Authorities of the Bank seeking indulgence and also to avail the statutory remedies available under the SARFAESI Act.