SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 29671

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
DEVADAS P.K. – Appellant
Versus
AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER SARFAESI ACT – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 16190 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MANJULA C. P.
For the Respondents: LAL K.JOSEPH, P.MURALEEDHARAN, SURESH SUKUMAR, SANJAY SELLEN, SONIA SHIBU, ANNLIYA M.F., MANOJ K., SARA ELIZABETH MATHEW

Writ petitions against recovery proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act are not maintainable when an efficacious alternative remedy is available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the recovery proceedings initiated by a financial institution under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The financial institution argued that the petition was not maintainable due to the existence of an alternative statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The court held that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when an efficacious statutory remedy is available. The main issue was whether the High Court should entertain a challenge against actions taken under the Act, given the availability of an alternative forum. Drawing from various precedents, the court reasoned that the legislative scheme provides a specific hierarchical mechanism for grievance redressal and interventions by the Writ Court are inappropriate in such instances. The writ petition is dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate statutory forum.

Table of Content
1. challenge to financial recovery proceedings and availability of alternative statutory remedy. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. precedent-based dismissal of writ petitions due to existing appellate statutory forum. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18th day of May, 2026 It is aggrieved by the coercive steps taken by 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 learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing 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 Debts Recovery Tribunal.

4. 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 Debts Recovery Tribunal.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions and right of the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top