Madras High Court

M.Shanthi vs The Recovery Officer on 9 July, 2025

Author: S.M.Subramaniam

Bench: S.M.Subramaniam

                                                                                 W.P.(MD) No.18615 of 2025



                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED : 09.07.2025

                                                             CORAM:

                                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
                                                       and
                                     THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE


                                              W.P.(MD) No.18615 of 2025
                                                         and
                                             W.M.P.(MD) No.14273 of 2025


                 M.Shanthi                                                                      ... Petitioner
                                                                 -vs-

                 1.The Recovery Officer
                   Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai
                   6th Floor, Additional Officer Building
                   Shastri Bhawan
                   Haddows Road
                   Nungambakkam
                   Chennai-600 006

                 2.The Branch Manager
                   State Bank of India
                   Woraiyur Branch
                   Tiruchirappalli

                 3.The Chief Manager and
                     Authorised Officer
                   State Bank of India
                   Stressed Assets Resolution Centre
                   Tiruchirappalli



                 _____________
                 Page 1 of 10




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis               ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 12:38:39 pm )
                                                                                      W.P.(MD) No.18615 of 2025



                 4.M.Ganesh Babu

                 5.M.R.Mohan Dass                                                                    ... Respondents


                 PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue

                 a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling upon the impugned order of

                 attachment of immovable property dated 19.06.2025 in TRC No.648/2022 in

                 TRC No.282/2019 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal - I, Chennai in

                 DRC No.156/2019 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal - Madurai in OA

                 No.129/2011 (DRT-Madurai) on the file of the 1st respondent, quash the same

                 as illegal, null and void, ultra vires, without jurisdiction and without authority

                 and for mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to auctioning or

                 selling the property belonging to the petitioner comprised in T.S.No.1167,

                 situated at Door No.46, Bakthapuri Street West Side, Municipality Ward No.1,

                 Kumbakonam Taluk and Town, Thanjavur District, admeasuring to an extent

                 of 3071 sq.ft., bounded on the East by Street, West by property belonging to

                 Ramalingam, South by house property belongs to Abdul Wahab and North by

                 house property belongs to Gopalsamy Ayyar and others.


                                  For Petitioner        : Mr.Shangar Murali

                                  For Respondents       : Mr.V.Malaiyendran
                                                          Central Govt. Senior Panel Counsel for R1

                 _____________
                 Page 2 of 10




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                    ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 12:38:39 pm )
                                                                                    W.P.(MD) No.18615 of 2025



                                                          Mr.T.Govindasamy for R2 & R3



                                                              ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]

The writ on hand has been instituted challenging the order of

attachment of immovable property, dated 19.06.2025, issued by the Debts

Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai.

2. The action initiated under the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002 (hereinafter, referred to as “the SARFAESI Act”) is susceptible to an

appeal under the provisions of the said Act. Thus, no writ petition is

maintainable.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner took a considerable length of

time to deal with the merits of the case, which cannot be adjudicated in the

present writ petition. He urged this Court that the decree passed by the Civil

Court is starring on the respondent – bank and thereafter, they have no

jurisdiction to attach the property.

_____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 12:38:39 pm )

4. All these grounds are to be raised before the appropriate forum,

since the legal position in this regard has been upheld by the Honourable

Supreme Court of India in the case of Celir LLP Vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai)

Private Limited and others, reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1. Paragraph Nos.97,

98, 110 and 110.1 of the said decision would be relevant in this context and

they have been extracted hereunder:-

“97.This Court has time and again, reminded the High Courts that they should not entertain petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. This Court in Satyawati Tondon [United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 260] made the following observations : (SCC pp. 123 & 128, paras 43-45 & 55) “43. Unfortunately, the High Court [Satyawati Tondon v. State of U.P., 2009 SCC OnLine All 2608] overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 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

_____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 12:38:39 pm )

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.

44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of

_____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 12:38:39 pm )

alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance.

***

55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the Sarfaesi Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.”

98.In CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603] , this Court in para 15 made the following observations : (SCC p. 611, para 15) “15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative

_____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 12:38:39 pm )

remedy i.e. 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, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case [Thansingh Nathmal v. Supdt. of Taxes, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 13] , Titaghur Paper Mills case [Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.”

110.We summarise our final conclusion as under:

110.1. The High Court was not justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when the borrowers had already availed the alternative remedy available to them under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.”

_____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 12:38:39 pm )

5. In view of the above legal position, granting liberty to the

petitioner to approach the competent forum to redress her grievance, this writ

petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petition is closed.

                                                                   [S.M.S., J.]              [A.D.M.C., J.]
                                                                                  09.07.2025
                 NCC      : Yes / No
                 Index : Yes / No
                 Internet : Yes / No

                 Note to Office:
                 Return the original impugned order to