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) 29672

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
SURENDRAN T.K. – Appellant
Versus
UCO BANK – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 16202 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MITHUN P., SUMEEN S., MERIN THOMAS
For the Respondents: H.RAMANAN

Writ petitions against 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 this writ petition challenging the coercive actions initiated by the respondent financial institution under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The court examined whether a writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy exists under the law. The main issue was whether the court should exercise its writ jurisdiction despite the clear availability of an alternative remedy before a specialized tribunal. Relying on binding precedents, the court held that writ petitions challenging proceedings under the aforementioned Act should not be entertained when an efficacious alternative legal recourse is available. The writ petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue remedies before the appropriate tribunal.

Table of Content
1. initiation of a challenge against sarfaesi proceedings. (Para 1)
2. requirement to exhaust alternative legal remedies. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

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

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing 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 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