Madras High Court

Uma Maheshwari vs The Authorized Officer on 25 June, 2025

Author: S.M.Subramaniam

Bench: S.M.Subramaniam

                                                                                              W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2025

                            BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                    DATED: 25.06.2025

                                                            CORAM:

                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
                                                               AND
                                  THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

                                             W.P(MD).No.17189 of 2025
                                                        and
                                        W.M.P(MD).Nos.13058 and 13060 of 2025

                     Uma Maheshwari                                                     ... Petitioner

                                                                          -vs-

                     1. The Authorized Officer,
                        M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.,
                        Dare House First Floor,
                        No.2, NSC Bose Road, Parrys,
                        Chennai- 600 001.

                     2. The Branch Manager,
                        M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.,
                        Tiruchendur Road,
                        Palayamkottai,
                        Tirunelveli District.                     ... Respondents

                     Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for
                     issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring the order or direction passed in
                     Crl.M.P.No.4445/2023        dated        28.04.2023           by       the    learned     CJM,
                     Kanniyakumari executed by an order dated 10.03.2025 for police protection
                     as illegal.

                     1/9



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis               ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:11:52 pm )
                                                                                             W.P.(MD)No.17189 of 2025



                                        For Petitioner         : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram
                                                                 Senior Counsel
                                                                 for N.GA.Natraj

                                        For Respondents        :

                                                              ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

The order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,

Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil under Section 14 of the SARFAESI

Act, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14

of the Sarfesi Act is susceptible to file an appeal under Section 7 of the

SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the writ petition under Artcile 226 of the

Constitution of India is not maintainable.

3. In view of the legal principles settled by the Hon'ble Supreme

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

Private Limited and others reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1 held that the High

Court was not justified in exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:11:52 pm )

of Constitution of India, since efficacious alternative remedy is

contemplated under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Paragraph Nos.

97, 98, 110 and 110.1 would be relevant in this context and have been

extracted herein:-

“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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:11:52 pm )

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:11:52 pm )

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)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:11:52 pm )

“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 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.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:11:52 pm )

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.”

4. By granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debt

Recovery Tribunal, the present writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

                                                                       (S.M.S., J.)         (A.D.M.C., J.)

                                                                                   25.06.2025
                     NCC :yes/No
                     Index :yes/No
                     Internet:yes/No
                     rgm








https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                   ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:11:52 pm )




                     To

                     1. The Authorized Officer,

M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., Dare House First Floor, No.2, NSC Bose Road, Parrys, Chennai- 600 001.

2. The Branch Manager, M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., Tiruchendur Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:11:52 pm )

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

and A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

rgm

and W.M.P(MD).Nos.13058 and 13060 of 2025

25.06.2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/07/2025 03:11:52 pm )