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) 31588

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. Balakrishnan, J
Joy Madathikunnel – Appellant
Versus
Chief Manager, South Indian Bank – Respondent
WP(C) No. 15656 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J. Julian Xavier, Firoz K. Robin, Roy Joseph, Akhil P.C., Aswathy Susan Paul
For the Respondents: P.A. Augustine

Writ petitions are not maintainable against recovery proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, as the Act provides a comprehensive and efficacious alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Headnote:The petitioner moved the High Court challenging coercive recovery proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner sought relief against the enforcement actions taken by the respondent financial institution. The primary issue was whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction against recovery actions taken under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Court, relying on established precedents, held that the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal precludes the maintenance of a writ petition in such matters. The writ petition was dismissed, granting liberty to approach the appropriate statutory tribunal.

Table of Content
1. initiation of legal challenge against coercive recovery steps taken by a financial institution. (Para 1 , 2)
2. requirement to exhaust alternative statutory remedies before the debts recovery tribunal in sarfaesi matters. (Para 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29th 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. I find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. 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