TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts in Survey No.1055/3-17 of Cheranelloor Village, which was offered as security for the loan availed from the 1st respondent Bank. The appellants state that during 2003-04, when the appellants were in financial distress, the 2nd respondent approached the 2nd appellant and offered help for securing a loan by having the properties temporarily transferred to his name with a solemn promise for reconveyance upon loan clearance. Pursuant to this representation, the appellants executed sale deeds bearing Nos. 3816 of 2004 and 3515 of 2004, respectively, in favour of the 2nd respondent purely for availing a loan from the Bank of India and Union Bank of India. Subsequently, they have executed Exts.P1 and P2 agreements dated 10.03.2004 and 29.03.2004, respectively, stipulating reconveyance of the properties covered by sale deeds on repayment of the share of the loan availed by the appellants. The appellants diligently remitted their share of loan repayment totalling Rs. 19,40,000/- by 25.01.2019. However, the 2nd respondent committed a criminal breach of trust by fraudulently and clandestinely pledging the title deeds of the properties with the 1st respondent Bank to avail a substantial ove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the writ petition, the 1st respondent Bank submitted that the sale certificate had already been issued, and therefore, the said writ petition was dismissed by Ext.P15 judgment dated 27.11.2025. Ext.P16 is the sale certificate issued by the 1st respondent to the 6th respondent. The appellants have sent Exts.P17 to P19 representations to respondents 3 to 5, praying to prevent the registration of any encumbrance, but had no avail. Hence, they approached this Court with the present writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No.9224 of 2026, seeking the following reliefs; "a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing all proceedings initiated by the 1st Respondent Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), including but not limited to the possession notice, the Exhibit P16 sale certificate issued in favour of the 6th Respondent, and all consequential actions taken thereunder, including the ongoing demolition of the Petitioners' residential house in respect of the scheduled properties comprising 7.833 cents in Survey No. 1055/3-16 and 9.40 cents in Survey....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e averment in the writ petition shows that SA No.202 of 2020 is now pending before the DRT and the challenge therein is regarding the alleged illegal and void mortgage created by the second respondent, in favour of the first respondent. It is also stated in the writ petition that SA No.202 of 2020 is now posted for hearing on 17.04.2026. 4. Be that as it may, 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. v. Naveen Mathew Philip [2023 KHC OnLine 6435] and PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank [2024 KHC OnLine 6208], have categorically held that the writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings must not be entertained since the aggrieved persons have an alternative and efficacious remedy before the DRT. In the light of the afore facts and circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions and right of the petitioners to pursue/avail the statutory remedy." 4. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present writ appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e gathered that when the Bank initiated recovery proceedings, the appellants initially approached the Tribunal, and the said S.A. bearing No.202 of 2020 is still pending consideration of the Tribunal. They have, thereafter, approached the Civil Court with a suit as O.S.No.234 of 2020 filed before the subordinate judges' court, Ernakulam, which was dismissed by Ext.P5 judgment. The appellants have initiated criminal proceedings against the 2nd respondent by approaching the Court of AJCM, Ernakulam, with a private complaint, which was also dismissed for non-prosecution, in respect of which a restoration application is pending. The Competition Commission, New Delhi, also dismissed the petition filed by the appellants. Then the appellants again approached this Court with W.P.(C)No.32908 of 2025, seeking a direction against the 1st respondent to consider their representation, which was also ended in dismissal by Ext.P15 judgment. When Ext.P16 sale certificate was issued by the Bank after the auction of the properties in favour of the 6th respondent, the appellants again approached this Court with the present writ petition. 10. In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Asset. The Division Bench noticed that a reading of S.13 of the SARFAESI Act makes it categorically clear that Parliament has provided a scheme thereunder, enabling an aggrieved person to ventilate his grievances by resorting to the procedure prescribed thereunder. The grievance of the appellants was that the respondent Bank is not entitled to proceed against them, since the conduct on the part of the Bank in converting the account of the appellants into a Non - Performing Asset is not in accordance with the Reserve Bank of India guidelines. The Division Bench held that it was a subject matter that ought to have been pointed out by the appellants before the Bank itself, since the statute prescribes a modality enabling a party to make a suitable representation. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the Bank squarely come under the procedure contemplated under S.13 of the SARFAESI Act, and the appellants have a clear remedy as is statutorily prescribed under the said Act. The question as regards the action initiated by the Bank illegally can be raised by the appellants before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, at the appropriate time, as is prescribed under law, and the Tribunal is veste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi - judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute". 15. In PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank [2024 (3) KHC SN 3] the Apex Court held that it is more than a settled legal position of law that in matters arising out of RDB Act and SARFAESI Act, the High Court should not entertain a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution particularly when an alternative statutory remedy is available. 16. From the judgments referred to supra, it is clear that unless the four exceptional circumstances mentioned by the Apex Court in Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KHC 786], the appellants cannot invoke the....