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) 33747

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. Balakrishnan, J
Umesh V K – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 15786 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Binu V V Veettil Valappil
For the Respondents: M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar

High Courts should not entertain writ petitions against SARFAESI Act proceedings as an efficacious alternative remedy is available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging coercive actions taken by the respondent bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The core issue was whether the court should entertain a writ petition against proceedings initiated under the aforementioned Act when an alternative remedy is available. The court determined that in light of established precedents, specifically regarding the availability of the Debts Recovery Tribunal as an effective statutory mechanism for grievances arising from such proceedings, judicial intervention via writ jurisdiction is inappropriate. The essential issue concerns the maintainability of a writ petition when there is an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy provided under the SARFAESI Act. The court reasoned that the legislative framework provides a specific forum for such disputes, and public policy dictates that these forums be exhausted first. The ratio decidendi emphasizes that High Courts should refrain from exercising writ jurisdiction where specialized tribunals are empowered to grant relief. The writ petition is dismissed, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Table of Content
1. writ petitions against sarfaesi proceedings are not maintainable due to existing alternative remedies. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5th day of June, 2026 It is aggrieved by the coercive steps taken by the 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