Back
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
Important Points
Subject
Banking and Finance - SARFAESI Act Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
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
| 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.
