Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 30150
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. Balakrishnan, J
Satheeshkumar N. – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank – Respondent
OP (DRT) NO. 335 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.J.John Prakash, P.Pramel, Sooraj M.S., Varsha Vijayakumar Nair, Manu Baby, Rajasree K.
For the Respondents: K.M.Aneesh, K.Santhosh Kumar (Kaliyanam)
High Court should not exercise writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution to challenge a Debts Recovery Tribunal order when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal exists before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
Headnote:The original petition was filed challenging an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act). The petitioners contended that the tribunal failed to consider their status as an MSME unit and the classification of their secured assets as agricultural properties. The court examined whether it should exercise its writ jurisdiction against an order of the tribunal. The core issue was whether the High Court should entertain a petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution against a decision of the Debts Recovery Tribunal when a statutory remedy exists. The court relied on settled legal principles to determine that the presence of an efficacious alternative appellate remedy before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal constitutes a bar to exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The original petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions and right of the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petition seeking intervention against a drt order and respective arguments. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. the principle of exhaustion of alternative statutory remedies precludes high court intervention via writ. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of May, 2026 This original petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside Ext.P25 order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam in I.A.No. 3440/2025 in S.A.No.16/2025.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ext.P25 order has been passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal without taking note of any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. He submitted that the 1st petitioner proprietorship is an MSME unit, prior to the classification of the loan account as NPA and that it is entitled to the benefit of revival and rehabilitation as per the RBI circular. He also submitted that even though the petitioners have produced materials to show that the secured assets are agricultural properties, the same was also not considered by the Tribunal, while passing Ext.P25 order.
4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that this Court may not entertain this OP (DRT) since the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal to challenge Ext.P25 order, before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
5. On an anxious consideration of the rival submissions and the materials on record, I find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent. The Honourable Apex Court in the decisions in Sreedhar K vs. M/s.Raus Construction Pvt.Ltd (2023 KHC OnLine 6012) and PNB Housing Finance Limited vs.Sh.Manoj Saha (AIR 2025 SC 3337) and a Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Union of India vs. Alice Ulahannan (2025 KHC OnLine 2217) have categorically held that, the High Court must not entertain petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the judgment and order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal since, the aggrieved persons have an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal.
In the light of the afore dictums and considering the fact that the petitioners are having an efficacious alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal to challenge Ext.P25 order, this original petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions and right of the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy.
