Dismissed

Elin Manju Preethi v. The Branch Manager/ Authorised Officer

Madras HC6 Jun 2025WP(MD)/5798/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Borrower challenged a SARFAESI possession notice by writ petition. The Court, relying on Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors, held the Debt Recovery Tribunal is the proper forum since an efficacious alternative remedy exists under the SARFAESI Act, dismissed the petition with liberty to approach the DRT.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal; writ petition period to be considered for delay condonation; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Elin Manju Preethi Vs The Branch Manager/ Authorised… — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.5798 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.5798 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD).No.4229 of 2025

¶7

Elin Manju Preethi ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Branch Manager/ Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, Trichy Ramalinga Nagar Branch, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

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.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For Respondent : Mr.Deepak Standing Counsel

¶13

Page 1 of 8

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD).No.5798 of 2025

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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:-

¶20

“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)

¶21

Page 2 of 8

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD).No.5798 of 2025

¶24

“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 quasijudicial 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.

¶25

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

¶26

Page 3 of 8

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD).No.5798 of 2025

¶29

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 selfimposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶30

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.

¶31

***

¶32

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

¶33

Page 4 of 8

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD).No.5798 of 2025

¶36

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.”

¶37

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)

¶38

“15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court

¶39

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

¶40

Page 5 of 8

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD).No.5798 of 2025

¶43

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.”

¶44

110.We summarise our final conclusion as under:

¶45

110.1. The High Court was not justified in exercising its

¶46

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.”

¶47

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.

¶48

(S.M.S.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 06.06.2025

¶49

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm

¶50

Page 6 of 8

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.(MD).No.5798 of 2025

¶53

¶54