Dismissed¶20

M/S.Rajsri Aqua Farms, v. the Managing Director

Madras HC9 Sept 2025WP(MD)/5742/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; W.P.(MD)No.5742 of 2016, decided 09.09.2025 by Justice G.R. Swaminathan; petitioner M/s.Rajsri Aqua Farms versus TIIC (Managing Director and Branch Manager, Dindigul); loan default; TIIC demand/settlement communication dated 16.03.2016; certiorari under Article 226 refused; demand notice held not amenable to writ challenge; borrower relegated to ordinary legal remedies; writ petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication, which merely calls upon the petitioner to settle the entire outstanding loan amount, cannot be amenable to legal challenge. ¶20

M/S.Rajsri Aqua Farms, Vs the Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)NO.5742 OF 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.5742 of 2016 AND W.M.P.(MD)No.5169 of 2016

¶7

M/s.Rajsri Aqua Farms, Rep. by its Proprietor, V.R.Sellavel Raja, S/o.R.V.Rajendran, S.No.2/1, R.S.No.2/1, D.No.2/86, Usilampatti Road, Vankatastri Kottai, Batlagundu, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd.,(TIIC), Corporate Office:No.692, Anna Salai, Nadanam, Chennai – 600 035.

¶11

The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., (TIIC), Dindigul Branch, Plot No.9, Spencer Compound (II Floor), Thiruvalluvar Salai, Dindigul – 624 003. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records from the second respondent in his proceedings in 1/3

¶13

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

¶14

2 W.P.(MD)NO.5742 OF 2016

¶15

TIIC/DGL/LAO2/2015-16 dated 16.03.2016 and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Babu For R-2 : Mr.R.Saravanan * * *

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard both sides.

¶19

The petitioner had availed loan from the respondent

¶20

Corporation. Since the petitioner had defaulted, the impugned communication came to be issued. The impugned communication merely calls upon the petitioner to settle the entire outstanding amount. This communication cannot be amenable to legal challenge. It is for the petitioner to work out his rights in the manner known to law. This writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

09.09.2025

¶22

NCS : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No

¶23

PMU

¶24

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

¶25

2/3

¶26