The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the auction notice of a jewel loan by a scheduled bank, holding such writs are not maintainable against scheduled banks per Federal Bank, relying on the petitioner to approach a civil court.
Petition dismissed; liberty granted to file suit in civil court; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD) No.10829 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.12.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.(MD) No.10829 of 2015 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015
P.Seran
.. Petitioner
Vs.
The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Periyakulam Branch, Theni District.
.. Respondent
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in Ref.56/1895 dated 18.06.2015 in respect of Jewel Loan A/c. No. 326006612437 fixing the date of auction on 01.07.2015, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to furnish the statement of accounts with split of details for payment so far made, rate of interest, accumulation of interest and principal outstanding.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Appadurai
_________Page 1 of 4
W.P.(MD) No.10829 of 2015
For Respondent : Mr.H.Arumugam
ORDER
The challenge in the writ petition is to an auction notice issued by
the respondent-Bank, which arose out of a jewel loan that had been availed by the petitioner.
Thomas reported in (2003) 10 SCC 733 had held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be maintainable against a scheduled bank. In such view of the matter, this writ petition as prayed for cannot be entertained. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate civil Court for remedying his grievance. If the petitioner approaches the appropriate civil Court, the period of pendency of this writ petition shall stand excluded while calculating the limitation for filing such suit.
_________Page 2 of 4
W.P.(MD) No.10829 of 2015
03.12.2024
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes abr To The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Periyakulam Branch, Theni District.
_________Page 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10829 of 2015
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
abr
W.P.(MD) No.10829 of 2015
Dated: 03.12.2024
_________Page 4 of 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a scheduled bank for quashing an auction notice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Federal Bank v. Sagar Thomas, (2003) 10 SCC 733Applied¶22
P.Seran
The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Periyakulam Branch
K.KUMARESH BABU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
