Dismissed¶52

Elangovan v. The Chief Manager

Madras HC17 Jul 2025WP(MD)/19248/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Elangovan v. Chief Manager/Branch Manager, South Indian Bank Ltd. and M/s.Nice Modern Rice Mill, W.P(MD)No.19248 of 2025, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, decided 17.07.2025 by Justice S.M.Subramaniam (author) and Dr. Justice A.D.Maria Clete. Mandamus sought for release of 450 bags paddy, 40 bags rice, 6 bags broken rice, 500 empty sacks from third respondent's mill. Dismissed as not maintainable since SARFAESI Act action initiated and alternative remedy available before Debts Recovery Tribunal; relied on Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (2024) 2 SCC 1; Article 226; Section 17 SARFAESI; DRT Act; Satyawati Tondon; Chhabil Dass Agarwal; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal to redress his grievance; no costs. ¶52

Elangovan Vs The Chief Manager — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.19248 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

W.P(MD)No.19248 of 2025

Elangovan

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Chief Manager, The South Indian Bank Limited, 1^st Floor, YMCA Building, 70 Feet Road, Ellis Nagar, Madurai – 625 001.

¶11

2.The Branch Manager, The South Indian Bank Limited, Tenkasi Road, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.

¶12

3.M/s.Nice Modern Rice Mill, Represented by its Partners, S.Thangaeshwaran, New No.259, Old No.6/43-B1, Poovani Village, Meenakshipuram Road, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents

¶13

1/9

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P(MD)No.19248 of 2025

¶16

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to take his 450 bags of paddy, 40 bags of rice (each contains 38 kgs), 6 bags of broken rice and also 500 bags of empty sacks from the third respondent's Mill by considering the representation dated 21.06.2025.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sankaravyasan For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.T.Thevan

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

The relief sought for in the present Writ Petition is to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to take possession of his 450 bags of paddy, 40 bags of rice (each contains 38 kgs), 6 bags of broken rice and also 500 bags of empty sacks from the third respondent's Mill by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 21.06.2025.

¶21

2/9

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P(MD)No.19248 of 2025

¶24

2.It is not in dispute that actions are initiated under the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable.

¶25

3.The legal position in this regard has been upheld by the Honourable 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 of the said decision would be relevant in this context and they have been extracted hereunder:-

¶26

“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)

¶27

“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

¶28

3/9

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P(MD)No.19248 of 2025

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

4/9

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P(MD)No.19248 of 2025

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

***

¶39

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

¶40

5/9

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

caution, care and circumspection.”

¶43

W.P(MD)No.19248 of 2025

¶44

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)

¶45

“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

¶46

6/9

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.P(MD)No.19248 of 2025

¶49

created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.”

¶50

110.We summarise our final conclusion as under:

¶51

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.”

¶52

4.In view of the above legal position, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal to redress his grievance, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶53

[S.M.S.,J.] & [A.D.M.C.,J.] 17.07.2025 (3/3) NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes ps

¶54

7/9

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

W.P(MD)No.19248 of 2025

¶57

¶58