Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33312
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. Balakrishnan, J
Noorjahan – Appellant
Versus
State Bank Of India – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 27234 OF 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pramod J. Dev
For the Respondents: Tom K. Thomas
Writ petitions against proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act are not maintainable as parties must exhaust the efficacious alternative remedy available before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Headnote:The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the coercive actions initiated by the respondent financial institution under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The core fact was the initiation of recovery proceedings against the petitioner, leading to the current challenge. The main issue was whether a writ petition is maintainable against proceedings initiated under the Act when an alternative statutory remedy is available. The court relied upon established precedents, holding that when an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy exists before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked. The writ petition was dismissed, granting the individual the liberty to pursue the appropriate statutory remedy.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. exhaustion of statutory remedies before the debt recovery tribunal is mandatory before approaching the high court. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of May, 2026 It is aggrieved by the coercive action taken by the respondent 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 respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed entertaining this writ petition and granting the reliefs to the petitioner since, she has an efficacious alternative remedy before the DRT.
4. I find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent. 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.
In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions and right of the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy.
