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) 30711

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. Balakrishnan, J
Sahrudayan N. – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 17630 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bharat Vijay P., Shahnoy Shaji, Neethu S., Minu Vittorria Paulson, Gopika Gopal
For the Respondents: P. Paulochan Antony

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

Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging coercive steps initiated by the respondent bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner sought the court's intervention to stop these proceedings. The core issue addressed was whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition against SARFAESI proceedings when an alternative statutory remedy exists before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Relying on settled judicial precedents, the court reasoned that the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy precludes the exercise of writ jurisdiction in such matters. The writ petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate statutory forum.

Table of Content
1. overview of the petitioner's challenge against sarfaesi action. (Para 1)
2. summary of rival contentions regarding alternative remedy. (Para 2 , 3)
3. court rules against writ maintainability due to available statutory remedies. (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