E.T FIROZ, vs THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I,

Court
Kerala High Court

CNR : KLHC010621392026

2026:KER:66167
W.A.No.1618 of 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
ST
MONDAY, THE 31 DAY OF AUGUST 2026 / 9TH BHADRA, 1948
WA NO. 1618 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.07.2026 IN WP(C) NO.3068 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
E.T FIROZ,
AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. E.T. MUHAMMED BASHEER, SOUMYA,
2/1788A, FLORICAN ROAD, KALATHIL AVENUE, CIVIL
STATION,MALAPPARAMBU, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
BY ADV SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I,
KSHB BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR,PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM,
KERALA, PIN - 682036
2 CANARA BANK,
ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH,KANAYANNUR TALUK,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682035
3 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,
CIRCLE OFFICE, MINI BYPASS ROAD,GOVINDAPURAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673016
C. AJITH KUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.08.2026, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CNR : KLHC010621392026

2026:KER:66167
W.A.No.1618 of 2026
2
JUDGMENT
st
Dated this the 31 day of August, 2026
Soumen Sen , C.J.
We have heard Mr. Praveen H., learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. C. Ajith Kumar, learned counsel for
respondents 2 and 3.
2. The order of the Recovery Officer, passed under Section
28(4) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993,
attaching the pre-deposit made by the appellant/writ petitioner
at the time of preferring the appeal against the order of the Debt
Recovery Tribunal (DRT), is challenged in this writ appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the Bank has opposed the
prayer on the ground that the said order is appealable under
Section 30 of the Act of 1993, inasmuch as in an earlier
proceeding, being O.P.(DRT)No.401 of 2024, a prayer was made
restraining the Bank/secured creditor from proceeding with the
attachment or appropriation of the pre-deposit amount of
₹ 3,95,50,000/- lying with the Hon’ble DRT, Chennai in R.A.No.5

CNR : KLHC010621392026

2026:KER:66167
W.A.No.1618 of 2026
3
of 2024 and to direct the respondent to consider the objections
submitted by the appellant in this regard.
4. Mr. C. Ajith Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 2
and 3, however, raised an objection as to the maintainability of
the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and submitted that the appropriate remedy would have been to
challenge the decision of the Recovery Officer under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, without conceding that the proper
remedy would be to prefer an appeal against the order of the
Recovery Officer.
5. We have perused O.P.(DRT) No.401 of 2024. It appears
that the said prayer was incidental to the main prayer whereby
the e-auction was sought to be challenged on the ground that a
settlement had been arrived at between the parties and the said
prayer was made on the apprehension that the respondents
might appropriate the amount without considering the
objections raised by the appellant. Admittedly, when the said
writ petition was withdrawn, the impugned order was not in
existence. The impugned order appears to have been passed

CNR : KLHC010621392026

2026:KER:66167
W.A.No.1618 of 2026
4
thereafter, upon consideration of the objections raised by the
appellant.
6. We accept the submission made on behalf of the
secured creditor that an efficacious alternative remedy is
available under Section 30 of the Act of 1993, in view of the
decision of the three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
1
in Radhey Shyam and Another v. Chhabi Nath and Others in
which it was held that the challenge to the judicial orders could
lie by way of statutory appeal or revision or under Article 227
and not by way of a writ under Articles 226 and 32. (see
paragraphs 27 and 18) and a recent decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Ajit Singh v. State of Rajasthan and
2
Others where, upon consideration of the catena of decisions, it
was held that, if the Tribunal is one over which the relevant high
court exercises jurisdiction under Article 227 too, a petition
seeking exercise of the power of judicial superintendence could
also be maintainable thereagainst. The relevant observations are
as under:
1 (2015) 5 SCC 423
2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1372

CNR : KLHC010621392026

2026:KER:66167
W.A.No.1618 of 2026
5
“ 23. Summing up this part of the discussion, we hold that
orders made by a tribunal constituted by a law, which has
Article 323A of the Constitution as its source, can be
challenged before the high courts under Article 226 of the
Constitution. On the other hand, if the tribunal is one over
which the relevant high court exercises jurisdiction under
Article 227 too, a petition seeking exercise of the power of
judicial superintendence could also be maintainable
thereagainst. If the rules of the relevant high court permit,
a combined application could also be instituted. By
extension, orders made by tribunals constituted by law
enacted in terms of Article 323B would similarly be
amenable to challenge either under Article 226, or Article
227, or both (if the rules so permit). The same logic would
apply even to orders of statutory tribunals (like the STAT
under the MV Act) and it can be challenged in writ
proceedings under Article 226 or even in proceedings under
Article 227 or both, subject to the rules permitting it. It is
vital to remember that exercise of discretion under Article
226 cannot, however, be refused merely because the
tribunal’s order could also have been challenged under
Article 227. In the process, we approve the decision of the
Full Bench of the High Court at Calcutta in Bhowanipore
Gujrati Education Society v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation
involving a similar issue. ”
7. The question concerning maintainability of the writ
petition challenging the order of the Recovery Officer filed

CNR : KLHC010621392026

2026:KER:66167
W.A.No.1618 of 2026
6
invoking Article 226 of the Constitution involves a question of
law and hence, we permit the respondents to raise the said
contention. However, having regard to the fact that the legal
position is required to be laid down with regard to the exercise of
power under Section 28(4) of the Act of 1993, and in view of the
observation made in paragraph 23 of Ajit Singh (supra), that
the exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India cannot, however, be refused merely because the Tribunal’s
order could also be challenged under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, we are of the view that the said issue
requires to be decided in this appeal. Nevertheless, we accept
the submission of the learned counsel for the secured creditor
that the application ought to have been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution. We further note that, to direct the appellant at
this juncture to file an application under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India would not only be unfair but would also
compound the problem. Moreover, had the learned Single Judge
Radhey Shyam
been made aware of the judgment in (supra),
the writ petition may not even have been entertained and could

CNR : KLHC010621392026

2026:KER:66167
W.A.No.1618 of 2026
7
have been dismissed giving liberty to the appellant to approach
the court having jurisdiction to hear and decide the application
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, this
Bench does not face the said problem. For the larger interest of
justice, we decide the appeal, instead of once again directing the
appellant to file an application under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the said order of the Recovery
Officer.
8. The learned counsel for the secured creditor, in all
fairness, submitted that the mode of attachment contemplated
under Section 28(4) of the Act of 1993 is something different
from the course of action sought to be adopted by the Recovery
Officer.
9. Even otherwise, in our view, Section 28(4) of the Act of
1993 is in the nature of a garnishee proceeding and does not
contemplate a situation where a statutory pre-deposit which has
been made under the second proviso to Section 18 of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 could be attached

CNR : KLHC010621392026

2026:KER:66167
W.A.No.1618 of 2026
8
invoking the said provision. Since the exercise of such power is
palpably erroneous and contrary to law, we are of the view that
it is necessary for the writ court to exercise its discretion under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and lay down the law to
be followed by the Tribunal in similar situations.
The writ appeal is thus allowed. Ext.P7 order of attachment
st
issued by the 1 respondent Recovery Officer is set aside.
Sd/-
Soumen Sen
Chief Justice
Sd/-
Syam Kumar V.M.
Judge
vpv

CNR : KLHC010621392026

2026:KER:66167
W.A.No.1618 of 2026
9
APPENDIX OF WA NO. 1618 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.02.2025
IN W.P.(C) NO.3068 OF 2025
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.03.2025
IN W.A. NO.357 OF 2025
Annexure A3 . A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
08.10.2025 IN W.P.(C) NO.3068 OF 2025
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.02.2026
IN W.A. NO.2673 OF 2025