S. Muralee Krishna J.

1. The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.9224 of 2026 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 12.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. According to the appellants, they are the absolute owners of the properties measuring an extent of 7.833 cents with a residential building situated in Survey No.1055/3-16 and 9.40 cents 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 overdraft facility for his personal and business purposes without the appellants' knowledge or consent.

                  2.1. The appellants further state that upon discovering the pledging of the title deeds and availing of a loan by the 2nd respondent, the appellants filed S.A.No.202 of 2020 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam (the ‘Tribunal’ for short), challenging the mortgage, and the said S.A. is pending adjudication. The appellants further filed O.S.No.234 of 2020 before the additional Sub Court III, Ernakulam, to set aside the sale deeds, which was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short). The appellants approached this Court by filing O.P.(DRT)No.23 of 2024, praying to direct the Tribunal to dispose of S.A.No.202 of 2020, within a time to be fixed by this Court. But this Court, by Ext.P6, judgment dated 29.05.2025, closed the O.P.(DRT). The appellants also approached the Competition Commission, New Delhi, by filing Case No.11 of 2024, which was dismissed as per Ext.P8 order dated 05.06.2024, however, acknowledging the financial arrangement between the appellants and the 2nd respondent.

                  2.2. The appellants plead that they initiated criminal proceedings against the 2nd respondent by filing CMP No.1270 of 2024 before the ACJM Court, Ernakulam, which was dismissed, vide Ext.P9 order dated 24.05.2025 due to non-appearance of the counsel of the appellants. Now, the appellants have filed Crl. M.C.No.681 of 2026 for restoration of the criminal proceedings, and the same is pending before the ACJM Court, Ernakulam. Despite the pendency of the S.A. before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent Bank issued Ext.P11 communication dated 10.08.2025 demanding the appellants to vacate the residential house, citing an order they obtained in M.C.No.429 of 2019 from the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. In reply to Ext.P11 notice, the 2nd appellant sent Ext.P14 representation dated 12.08.2025 to the 1st respondent Bank, requesting two months' time to arrange funds and to regularise the account.

                  2.3. The appellants further state that they had previously approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.32908 of 2025, seeking a direction to the 1st respondent Bank to consider their representation. After the filing of 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 No. 1055/3-17 of Cheranelloor Village, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam District.

                  b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, declaring that the mortgage created by the 2nd Respondent, Mr. George Mathew, in favour of the 1st Respondent CSB Bank Ltd., over the scheduled properties is fraudulent, void ab initio, and consequently, the 1st Respondent Bank has no valid security interest over the said properties.

                  c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the 1st Respondent Bank to forthwith restore peaceful physical possession of the scheduled properties, including the residential building situated thereon, to the Petitioners.

                  d) Issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, restraining the 1st Respondent Bank and the 6th Respondent, their agents, servants, or anyone acting on their behalf, from carrying out any further demolition, alteration, or alienation of the scheduled properties, pending final adjudication of S.A. No. 202 of 2020 before the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam, or until further orders from this Honourable Court.

                  e) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the 3rd Respondent (The Tahsildar, Kanayannoor Taluk), the 4th Respondent (The District Collector, Ernakulam District), and the 5th Respondent (The Sub Registrar, Ernakulam Sub Registrar Office) not to register any sale deed, encumbrance, or effect any mutation in the revenue records in respect of the scheduled properties based on the fraudulent mortgage or the impugned sale certificate issued by the 1st Respondent Bank.

                  f) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam, to consider and dispose of S.A. No. 202 of 2020 expeditiously, preferably within a time frame to be stipulated by this Honourable Court, and to consider any interim application for protection of the property with utmost urgency.”

3. On 12.03.2026, when the writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge dismissed the same, without prejudice to the contentions and rights of the appellants to pursue/avail the statutory remedy. Paragraphs 3, 4 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;

                  “3. The 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 counsel for the 1st respondent Bank and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

6. Considering the nature of the appeal, issuance of notice to the remaining respondents is dispensed with.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants are not the borrowers and the loan was availed by the 2nd respondent. The sale deeds executed by the appellants in favour of the 2nd respondent are nominal documents executed solely for the purpose of availing a loan from the Bank and agreeing to reconvey the properties, the 2nd respondent had executed Exts.P1 and P2 agreements in favour of the appellants. The S.A. filed by the appellants is pending before the Tribunal, and at least till the disposal of the S.A., the status quo may be directed to be maintained by moulding the reliefs sought in the writ petition.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent Bank would submit that, in fact, the appellants have committed a banking fraud by executing the sale deeds in favour of the 2nd respondent, if the contentions of the appellants are accepted. But as far as the Bank is concerned, it is not a party to the sale deeds or to Exts.P1 and P2 agreements. The 2nd respondent has validly mortgaged the property with the Bank, and when the loan became a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), the Bank has properly proceeded under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The remedy available to the appellants, if they are really aggrieved by the recovery proceedings initiated by the Bank, is before the Tribunal and not before this Court. Moreover, the claim of the appellants itself is a matter to be decided on facts, and a writ petition is not entertainable based on the pleadings therein.

9. The appellants have challenged the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent Bank against the secured asset when the loan availed by the 2nd respondent by mortgaging the properties in question became an NPA. The appellants contend that though they have executed sale deeds in favour of the 2nd respondent, those sale deeds are nominal documents executed for the purpose of availing a loan from the Bank, and there was subsequent agreements in between the appellants and the 2nd respondent to reconvey the properties on clearing the loan availed by the them on the strength of the sale deeds executed by the appellants. From the materials placed on record, it can be 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 SCC 110], a Two - Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that if the 1st respondent guarantor had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act or the action taken under Section14, then he could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The expression 'any person' used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under Section 17 and Section 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective.

11. In Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110], on the facts of the case at hand, the Apex Court noted that the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. While 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 the remedy under Art.226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.

12. In Kuruvithadam Agencies (Pvt.) Ltd. and another v. Authorised Officer, Standard Chartered Bank (2021:KER:20923) - judgment dated 28.05.2021 in W.A.No.1584 of 2020, the grievance of the appellants was that the Bank had not followed the guidelines and directives issued by the Reserve Bank of India in the matter of treating the account as Non - Performing 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 vested with ample powers to consider such aspects, regarding the loan account maintained by an aggrieved person with a Bank, the conduct on the part of the Bank in making the account a Non - Performing Asset and the failure on the part of the Bank to follow the Reserve Bank guidelines. That apart, there is a clear remedy of appeal provided under the SARFAESI Act, if aggrieved, on any order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which thus means, the statute has provided a clear mechanism to tackle all and any situations of an aggrieved person under law, and therefore, a writ court would be slow in interfering with the action initiated by the Bank, especially because the SARFAESI Act was introduced with the avowed object of speedy recovery of amounts, without unnecessary interference of courts.

13. In Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KHC 786], the Apex Court held that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a writ petition only under exceptional circumstances and that it is a self imposed restraint by the High Court. The four exceptional circumstances such as, where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, were re iterated in paragraph 6 of the said judgment by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and Others v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603].

14. This position was reiterated by the Apex Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip [2023 (4) KLT 29] and after discussing the various judgments on the point as well as the circumstances in which the High Court can interfere with in matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act, held as under:

                  “Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while 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 writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the proceedings initiated by the Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. It is clear from the reading of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act that any person claiming a right on the secured asset can move the Tribunal if aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against that property by the secured creditor under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

17. As already noted, the appellants contend that the sale deeds executed by them in favour of the 2nd respondent are only for the purpose of availing a loan. At one place, the appellants say that the sale deeds are nominal documents, and whereas in another place, they say that by Exts.P1 and P2 agreements, the 2nd respondent agreed to retransfer the property in their name on repayment of their share of the loan. These are questions of fact and not matters that can be decided in a writ petition. Moreover, as noted above, the exceptional circumstances as laid down in Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KHC 786] are not made out by the appellants to entertain the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly dismissed the writ petition.

18. Having considered the pleadings and materials placed on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to hold the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge as perverse or patently illegal, which warrants interference by exercising appellate jurisdiction.

                  In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.