Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 29296
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. Balakrishnan, J
DEEPAKUMARI K – Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 16790 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Anilkumar C.R., Smt Amrutha M. Nair
For the Respondents: State Bank of India
Writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings are not maintainable when an efficacious alternative remedy exists before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Headnote:The petitioner challenges coercive action taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The court observes that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The High Court relies on Apex Court decisions holding that writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings should not be entertained when statutory remedies are available. The court dismisses the writ petition without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to approach the DRT.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. sarfaesi action challenged by writ petition. (Para 1) |
| 2. writ not maintainable when alternative remedy available before drt. (Para 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th 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, she 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.
