Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 30462

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. Balakrishnan, J
Sunil K S – Appellant
Versus
Authorised Officer, Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd – Respondent
OP (DRT) NO. 162 OF 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N.K.Mohanlal
For the Respondents: K.Amminikutty

When a petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under the SARFAESI Act to challenge an interlocutory order of a Tribunal, the High Court will typically decline to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction and relegate the party to the statutory appellate process.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal directing the deposit of a specific sum for the deferment of physical possession of a secured asset under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Given that the petitioner failed to comply with the conditional order and had an alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Act, the court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. The court determined that the petitioner should instead approach the Tribunal for an early hearing of the pending stay application. The central issue involved was whether the High Court should entertain a challenge against a conditional interlocutory order passed by a Tribunal when an alternative appellate remedy exists. The court reasoned that in the presence of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy, it is inappropriate to invoke supervisory jurisdiction, directing the petitioner to seek the Tribunal's assistance for the expeditious disposal of pending interlocutory proceedings. The original petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. high court declines interference in presence of efficacious statutory alternative remedy under sarfaesi act. (Para 4 , 5)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21^st day of May, 2026 This original petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Pass appropriate order for setting aside Exhibit P4 order of Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam passed in I.A.No. 1585/2026 in S.A.No.243/2026 as illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind.

ii. Pass appropriate order directing the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam to hear and dispose of Exhibit P3, I.A.No.1585/2026 on merits after hearing both the parties thereon until then deposit of amount as stipulated in Exhibit P4 order may be kept in abeyance.”

respondent.

submits that he is limiting his prayer for an early disposal of Ext.P3 stay petition pending before the DRT, since he could not comply with Ext.P4 order.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed entertaining this OP(DRT) and contended that the petitioner has got an efficacious alternative remedy to challenge Ext.P4 before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.

5. What is challenged in this original petition is Ext.P4 order, wherein the Tribunal has directed the respondent to defer taking physical possession of the secured asset subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.20 lakhs on or before 29.04.2026. Admittedly, the petitioner has not complied with the afore order. As rightly respondent, if the petitioner has any grievance relating to Ext.P4, he has to file an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. Now it is admitted by both sides that Ext.P3 stay petition is posted to 02.06.2026 for consideration. If the petitioner wants to get an early disposal of Ext.P3 on merits, it is for him to move the Tribunal, pointing out the urgency and getting the matter disposed of. With the aforesaid liberty, this original petition is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 30462

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMP. V. Balakrishnan, JSunil K S – AppellantVersusAuthorised Officer, Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd – RespondentOP (DRT) NO. 162 OF 2026

When a petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under the SARFAESI Act to challenge an interlocutory order of a Tribunal, the High Court will typically decline to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction and relegate the party to the statutory appellate process.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. Balakrishnan, J
Sunil K S – Appellant
Versus
Authorised Officer, Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd – Respondent
OP (DRT) NO. 162 OF 2026