Madras High Court
Elin Manju Preethi vs The Branch Manager/ Authorised Officer on 6 June, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.(MD).No.5798 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
W.P.(MD).No.5798 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.4229 of 2025
Elin Manju Preethi ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Branch Manager/ Authorised Officer,
Canara Bank,
Trichy Ramalinga Nagar Branch,
Tiruchirappalli District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned
possession notice dated 15.02.2025 under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act of
the respondent and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth
For Respondent : Mr.Deepak
Standing Counsel
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 01:23:41 pm )
W.P.(MD).No.5798 of 2025
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The Writ Petition has been instituted challenging the possession notice
under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Since the notice itself has been
issued under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner has to approach the Debt
Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act for redressal of her grievances.
2. 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 of Constitution of India, since efficacious alternative remedy
is contemplated under the provisions of 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)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 01:23:41 pm )
“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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 01:23:41 pm )
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 01:23:41 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 01:23:41 pm )
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.”
3. In view of the above legal position, granting liberty to the petitioner to
approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. The
period during which the Writ Petition was pending before this Court shall be
considered for the purpose of condoning the delay in the event of filing any
petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.)
06.06.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Lm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 01:23:41 pm )
To
The Branch Manager/ Authorised Officer,
Canara Bank,
Trichy Ramalinga Nagar Branch,
Tiruchirappalli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 01:23:41 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
and
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE,J.
Lm
06.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 01:23:41 pm )
