Madras High Court
H.Mohamed Meeran vs The Authorized Officer on 11 June, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.(MD)No.12019 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
W.P.(MD)No.12019 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.8847 of 2025
H.Mohamed Meeran ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Authorized Officer,
Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co Ltd.,
Edelweiss House,
Off CST Road,
Kalina, Mumbai 400 098. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned demand notice under
section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act dated 11.05.2024 and Possession Notice under
section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act dated 11.04.2025 issued by the Respondent
herein and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondent to
issue No Due Certificate and return the original Documents to the Petitioner.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:54 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.12019 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Maran
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The writ on hand has been instituted challenging the demand notice under
Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Therefore, the petitioner has to
approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal for redressal of his grievance, in view of the
legal principle settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Celir LLP Vs.
Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited and others reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1
and the relevant portions are 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:54 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:54 pm )
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion
of 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:54 pm )
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.”
2. Granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery
Tribunal, the present writ petition stands dismissed. However, in event of
approaching the tribunal, the period during which the writ petition was pending
before this Court is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of condoning the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:54 pm )
delay, if any. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.S., J.) & (A.D.M.C., J.)
11.06.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:54 pm )
To:-
1.The Authorized Officer,
Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co Ltd.,
Edelweiss House,
Off CST Road,
Kalina, Mumbai 400 098.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:54 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
Sm
11.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 05:29:54 pm )
