JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna S., J. The appellants, who are the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.12412 of 2026, filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 , challenging the judgment dated 27.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the appellants had availed a loan for an amount of Rs.4,95,00,000/- (Four Crores Ninety Five Lakhs Rupees Only) from the 1 st respondent in the year 2016, by executing Exhibit P1 mortgage deed dated 15.06.2016, creating a mortgage by deposit of title deed of the property, for business expansion with a loan tenure of 96 months with floating interest of 14% per annum and Ext.P2 promissory note of the same date in favour of respondents No.1 and 2. Subsequently, respondent No.2, on behalf of respondent No.1 issued Ext.P3 notice dated 23.08.2019 to the 1 st appellant, communicating that the debt due from the appellants, i.e. loan, availed from the 1 st respondent, was assigned and transferred to Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd, vide assignment deed dated 01.03.2019 and respondents No. 3 and 4 were appointed to service the loan account of the appellants from 01.09.2019. While the appellants strongly refuted the authority of the respondents’ no. 3 and 4, by issuing Ext.P4 notice dated 01.09.2021, they issued Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 notices dated 15.09.2022 and 20.03.2023 under Sections 13(2) and 13(4)of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act' for short). 2.1. The appellants further state that meanwhile, on 28.02.2025, respondent No. 6 on behalf of respondent No.5 caused Ext.P7 notice to the appellants claiming that the rights pertaining to the loan of the appellants was transferred to respondent No.5, vide assignment deed dated 09.10.2024 and when the appellants disputed their legal authority, respondent Nos.5 and 6 issued Ext.P8 notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, while Exts.P5 and P6 notices issued by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were subsisting. Since two different and independent entities simultaneously initiated SARFAESI proceedings against the appellants upon the same transaction, the appellants reasonably apprehended fraud and approached the Munsiff Court, Kottayam, vide Ext.P9 suit seeking a declaration of fraud and a temporary injunction, wherein all the respondents appeared, and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed Ext.P11 objection and submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the Munsiff Court. 5 and 6 filed Ext.P11 objection and submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the Munsiff Court. They further preferred Ext.P12 interlocutory application seeking to relegate parties to arbitration. Moreover, respondents Nos. 5 and 6 have taken a contradictory stand on devolution of rights upon them in Exts. P7, P8 and Ext.P9. 2.2. According to the appellants, while the suit was pending before the Munsiff Court, respondents Nos. 5 and 6 made Ext.P14 public notice for sale of the subject matter property by concealing the subsistence of the suit before the civil Court. They subsequently approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam, by instituting Exhibit P16 petition seeking to take possession of the subject matter property by concealing the subsistence of the suit before the civil Court. The advocate commission appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court had issued Exhibit-P15 notice dated 06.03.2026, stating that possession will be taken on 27.03.2026. Till date, the respondents have not produced the assignment deed dated 09.10.2024 to establish their locus to proceed against the appellants. The appellants are highly aggrieved by Exhibit P16 proceedings of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam, during the pendency of the suit before the civil court. With these pleadings, the appellants filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs; “i) declare that Exhibit P15 and P16 are unsustainable in law and thereby set aside Exhibits P15 and 16; ii) issue a writ of certiorari or order calling for records leading to Exhibit 15 and P16 and quash all proceedings arising out of it. iii) declare that the rights of the respondent to proceed against the petitioner from transactions arising from Exhibit P1 are to be adjudicated in O.S. No. 136 of 2025 pending before the Hon’ble Munsiff Court, Ettumanoor;” 3. On 27.03.2026, when the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Single Judge dismissed the same, without prejudice to the contentions and right of the appellants to avail the statutory remedy. The said judgment reads thus; “It is aggrieved by the coercive action 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 on admission. 3. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners on admission. 3. 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 writ petitions against SARFAESI proceedings must not be entertained since the aggrieved persons have an alternative and efficacious remedy before the DRT. In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions and right of the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy.” 4. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellants have filed the present writ appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6. Considering the nature of the appeal, issuance of notice to the remaining respondents is dispensed with. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition without appreciating the factual contentions pleaded in the writ petition against the proceedings initiated by the Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The appellants have, in fact, challenged the existence of a secured creditor-borrower relationship between themselves and respondents 3 to 6. They have contended that the alleged assignments are neither valid nor legally enforceable and that no lawful transfer of interest in the secured asset has taken place. Since the relationship of secured creditor and borrower is under challenge, the appellants cannot seek their remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Moreover, a suit as O.S.No.136 of 2025 filed by the appellants is pending before the Munsiff Court, Ettumanoor, wherein the secured creditor-borrower relationship is under challenge. The pendency of the suit was not disclosed by respondents 3 to 6 when they initiated proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. Therefore, the appellants have no other remedy, except the writ petition. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 would submit that it is true that the appellants have filed O.S.No.136 of 2025 before the Munsiff Court, Kottayam. Therefore, the appellants have no other remedy, except the writ petition. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 would submit that it is true that the appellants have filed O.S.No.136 of 2025 before the Munsiff Court, Kottayam. However, there is no interim order granted by the learned Munsiff, even though the appellants have filed an interlocutory application for a temporary injunction. Under those circumstances, the pendency of the suit was not mentioned in the proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 that the respondents have filed an interlocutory application in the suit raising the question of maintainability, since there is an arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the Bank and the borrower. According to the learned counsel, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. 8. In the writ petition, the appellants have challenged Ext.P15 notice dated 06.03.2026 issued by the Advocate Commissioner in pursuance of his appointment by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam, in Ext.P16 M.C.No.105 of 2026 filed by the 5 th respondent invoking the provisions under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. 9. As far as interference by exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the recovery proceedings initiated by the Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act are concerned, inAuthorized Officer, State Bankof Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KHC786], the Apex Court held that the High Court under Article 226 of the 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 inCommissioner of IncomeTax and Others v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [ (2014) 1 SCC 603 ] 10. 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 Art.226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.” [Underline supplied] 11. 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 Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly when an alternative statutory remedy is available. 12. A learned Single Judge of this Court inJasmin K. v. State Bank of India [ 2024 (3) KHC 266 ]reiterated the position of law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments. 13. 12. A learned Single Judge of this Court inJasmin K. v. State Bank of India [ 2024 (3) KHC 266 ]reiterated the position of law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments. 13. Apart from that, we notice that in paragraph 9 of the judgment in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Limited [2025 SCC OnLine SC 177] , the Apex Court held thus; “We may sum up thus: (1) For issuing writ against a legal entity, it would have to be an Instrumentality or agency of a State or should have been entrusted with such functions as are Governmental or closely associated therewith by being of public importance or being fundamental to the life of the people and hence Governmental. (2) A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State Government; (ii) Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any Statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function. (3) Although a non-banking finance company like the Muthoot Finance Ltd. with which we are concerned is duty bound to follow and abide by the guidelines provided by the Reserve Bank of India for smooth conduct of its affairs in carrying on its business, yet those are of regulatory measures to keep a check and provide guideline and not a participatory dominance or control over the affairs of the company. (4) A private company carrying on banking business as a Scheduled bank cannot be termed as a company carrying on any public function or public duty. (5) Normally, mandamus is issued to a public body or authority to compel it to perform some public duty cast upon it by some statute or statutory rule. In exceptional cases a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus may issue to a private body, but only where a public duty is cast upon such private body by a statute or statutory rule and only to compel such body to perform its public duty. In exceptional cases a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus may issue to a private body, but only where a public duty is cast upon such private body by a statute or statutory rule and only to compel such body to perform its public duty. (6) Merely because a statue or a rule having the force of a statute requires a company or some other body to do a particular thing, it does not possess the attribute of a statutory body. (7) If a private body is discharging a public function and the denial of any rights is in connection with the public duty imposed on such body, the public law remedy can be enforced. The duty cast on the public body may be either statutory or otherwise and the source of such power is immaterial but, nevertheless, there must be the public law element in such action. (8) According to Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Ed. Vol.30, p.682, "a public authority is a body not necessarily a county council, municipal corporation or other local authority which has public statutory duties to perform, and which perform the duties and carries out its transactions for the benefit of the public and not for private profit". There cannot be any general definition of public authority or public action. The facts of each case decide the point.” [Underline supplied) 14. According to respondents 5 and 6, the 5 th respondent is a financial institution defined under Section 2(1)(m) of the SARFAESI Act. It is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 , and therefore, cannot be subjected to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . 15. From the pleadings in the writ petition and the materials placed on record, we notice that the appellants are challenging the relationship between the appellants and respondents 3 to 6. According to them, there is no secured creditor-borrower relationship between themselves and respondents 3 to 6. Seeking that declaration, they have already approached the Civil Court. These factual aspects pleaded by the appellants cannot be decided in a writ petition filed by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . 16. According to them, there is no secured creditor-borrower relationship between themselves and respondents 3 to 6. Seeking that declaration, they have already approached the Civil Court. These factual aspects pleaded by the appellants cannot be decided in a writ petition filed by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . 16. As rightly found by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have an equal and efficacious alternative remedy against the proceedings initiated by the Bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. They can also agitate the factual aspects now raised in the writ petition before the Tribunal. Apart from that, as noticed above, they have already filed a civil suit raising the very same contentions, which is also pending adjudication. 17. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to hold that the appellants have made out any exceptional circumstance as held in Mathew K.C. [ 2018 (1) KHC 786 ] and S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Limited [2025 SCC OnLine SC 177] In the result, this writ appeal stands dismissed.