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) 30689

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. Balakrishnan, J
Soujath P.E. – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1875 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Thareeq Anver, Arun Chand
For the Respondents: M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, K.John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C. Abraham, Raja Kannan, Akhila Nambiar

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

Headnote:The petitioner challenged coercive measures 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 legislation. The primary issue was the maintainability of the writ petition in light of available alternative remedies. Relying on established precedents, the court observed that judicial interference in recovery proceedings under the specific Act is restricted where the borrower has an efficacious remedy provided before the specialized tribunal. The writ petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue appropriate statutory remedies.

Table of Content
1. petition seeking relief against sarfaesi proceedings. (Para 1)
2. objection regarding existence of alternative statutory remedy. (Para 2 , 3)
3. court refuses to entertain writ petitions where alternative forum exists. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd 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