Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 29563
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
ABDUL RAHIMAN – Appellant
Versus
PONNANI CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 16859 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN
High Courts should not entertain writ petitions challenging proceedings under the SARFAESI Act when an efficacious alternative remedy is available before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).
Headnote:The petitioner challenged coercive measures initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner sought intervention in the mortgage enforcement proceedings. The court addressed whether a writ petition is maintainable against proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. Relying on established precedents, the court held that an efficacious alternative remedy exists before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), and therefore, the high court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue statutory remedies.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. availability of alternative statutory remedy bars writ petition against sarfaesi enforcement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of May, 2026 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, he has an efficacious alternative remedy before the DRT.
4. I find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. 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.
