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) 33765

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. Balakrishnan, J
D. Sunilkumar – Appellant
Versus
Authorized Officer, Canara Bank – Respondent
WP(C) No. 37741 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jobi A. Thampi, Binny A. Thomas, C.M. Ebrahim, Shoukath Husain, Jerrymon Abraham, Nishmma James
For the Respondents: M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, K. John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C. Abraham, Raja Kannan, Akhila Nambiar

Writ petitions against proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, are generally not maintainable when there exists an effective and efficacious alternative remedy available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Headnote:The present case involves challenges to coercive measures initiated by financial institutions under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitioners moved the High Court via a writ petition, contesting the enforcement steps taken against their property security. The High Court rejected the petition, noting that the petitioners have an efficacious alternative statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, consistent with established precedents limiting judicial interference in such proceedings. The central issue addressed was whether a writ petition is maintainable against proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Relying on consistent jurisprudence from the Apex Court, the Court reasoned that since the Act provides a robust appellate mechanism through the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not warranted, as the petitioners must exhaust their alternative remedies first. The court dismissed the petition with liberty for the petitioners to approach the appropriate statutory forum.

Table of Content
1. petitioners challenge sarfaesi recovery measures via writ petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. courts will not entertain writ petitions when an alternative statutory remedy (drt) exists. (Para 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 petitioners.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed entertaining this writ petition and granting the reliefs to the petitioners since they have 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 petitioners 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