Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 29155
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
M.V. VISWANATHAN – Appellant
Versus
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 15285 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.CECIL C GEORGE, SHRI.JADEN MATHEW, SMT.SANDRA SURESH
For the Respondents: SHRI.LEO GEORGE
Writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings should not be entertained when an efficacious alternative remedy exists before the DRT.
Headnote:The judgment analyzes the statutory framework under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner challenges coercive recovery measures initiated by the respondent bank, but the court finds that an efficacious statutory alternative remedy exists before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The court determines that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked in such matters. The issues framed include whether a writ petition should be entertained against proceedings under the SARFAESI Act when an alternative and efficacious remedy is available before the DRT. The ratio decidendi holds that writ petitions challenging SARFAESI proceedings must not be entertained, as the aggrieved persons have an alternative and efficacious remedy before the DRT. The result is that this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions and right of the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against sarfaesi coercive action. (Para 1) |
| 2. alternative remedy before drt bars writ petition. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. apex court rulings require dismissal of writ. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of May, 2026 It is aggrieved by the coercive action taken by the respondent 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 respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the 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 respondent. 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], has 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.
