Madras High Court
P.Sivakumar vs The Authorized Officer on 6 June, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.(MD)No.14427 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.14427 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.11734 of 2025
P.Sivakumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Authorized Officer,
City Union Bank Ltd.,
Credit Recovery and Management Department,
Administrative Office,
No.24-B, Gandhi Nagar,
Kumbakonam 612 001.
2. The Branch Manager,
City Union Bank Ltd.,
Tuticorin Branch,
No.345, VOC Road,
Tuticorin 628 002. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a
Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to accept the balance amount sum of
Rs.28,74,507/- for further two installments as per the Re-Tender cum Auction Sale
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 10:52:23 am )
W.P.(MD)No.14427 of 2025
Notice dated 05.09.2024 issued by the 1st respondent based on the petitioner's
representations dated 27.03.2025 and 07.05.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Ezhilarasu
For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilipkumar
Standing Counsel
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to direct the respondents to
accept the balance amount of Rs.28,74,507/- for further two installments as per
Re-Tender cum Auction Sale Notice dated 05.09.2024 issued by the 1st
respondent, based on the petitioner's representations dated 27.03.2025 and
07.05.2025.
2.The issues raised in the present Writ Petition is falling under the
provisions of SARFAESI Act. Therefore, this Writ Petition is not maintainable, 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. Paragraph Nos.97, 98, 110 and 110.1 would be
relevant in this context and have been extracted herein:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 10:52:23 am )
“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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 10:52:23 am )
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
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.
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 10:52:23 am )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 10:52:23 am )
(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.”
3.In view of the above legal position, granting liberty to the petitioner to
approach the competent forum for redressal of grievances, this Writ Petition stands
dismissed. No 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
Yuva
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 10:52:23 am )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
Yuva
06.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 10:52:23 am )
