Writ petitions against proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 are generally not maintainable when the aggrieved party has an efficacious alternative remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of said Act.

P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

…....................................

…........................................................ Dated this the 22^nd day of May, 2026 JUDGMENT It is aggrieved by the coercive action taken by respondents

1 to 3 under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SARFAESI Act' for short), 2002, this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 3. A perusal of the records would show that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P. (C)No.7991 of 2025 and has suffered Ext.P12 judgment. In the afore writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of respondents 1 to 3, classifying the account as NPA without extending the statutory protections available to MSME. It was contended that the afore act of respondents 1 to 3 is arbitrary, illegal, and is in violation of the binding notifications and also that the respondent has acted in disregard to the applicable legal framework. As stated earlier, it is by negativing all the afore contentions, the writ petition was dismissed by Ext.P12 judgment. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has, challenged this judgment before the Hon'ble Apex Court, and that the matter is still pending before the Apex Court, as evidenced by Ext.P13.

4. Be that as it may, as far as Ext.P16 is concerned, (produced along with IA No.1 of 2026 dated 20.05.2026) I am of the considered view that the petitioner is having an efficacious alternative remedy to challenge it before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 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 DRT.

Ergo, for the afore reasons, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions and right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P16.