M/s.Seshadri Protective Coatings, Vs the Recovery… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

M/s.Seshadri Protective Coatings, Vs the Recovery… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition disposed of with no costs and connected miscellaneous petitions (WMP Nos. 18402 & 18403 of 2026) closed; petitioner left free either to pursue settlement with the first respondent or to challenge the impugned order before the ESI Tribunal; respondent directed not to initiate any coercive action against the petitioner for two weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the ESIC recovery order dated 17.11.2025 and consequential recovery proceedings should be entertained despite the availability of an effective alternative remedy before the ESI Tribunal (Employees' Insurance Court). +1 more

Court's answer

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that an effective alternative remedy lies before the ESI Tribunal (the Employees' Insurance Court) under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948; on this basis the writ petition was not entertained on its merits.

Ratio / Principle

It is open to the petitioner either to pursue the settlement of outstanding dues before the first respondent or to approach the ESI Tribunal to challenge the impugned order in the manner known to law.

Key takeaways

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent was directed not to initiate any coercive action against the petitioner for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (K. Surender, J., single Judge), Order dated 10-07-2026 in WP No. 17112 of 2026 (connected WMP Nos. 18402 & 18403 of 2026). M/s. Seshadri Protective Coatings challenged the recovery order dated 17.11.2025 (Letter No.TN/ RECY/ 45G/ 51001187950001099/ CCR-120331) issued by the Recovery Officer, Employees State Insurance Corporation, and the consequential recovery proceedings, contending that the order was passed without notice after a change of the petitioner's address, and sought forbearance from coercive recovery action including attachment or freezing of bank accounts. The Court found an effective alternative remedy available before the ESI Tribunal (the Employees' Insurance Court) under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948; it recorded that the petitioner had already approached the Recovery Officer pursuant to the Court's direction and that the respondents were inclined to consider and settle the outstanding dues, though a hearing opportunity was yet to be afforded. The writ petition was DISPOSED OF with NO COSTS and the connected miscellaneous petitions CLOSED, the petitioner remaining free either to pursue the settlement before the Recovery Officer or to challenge the impugned order before the ESI Tribunal. Additionally, the respondent was directed NOT TO INITIATE ANY COERCIVE ACTION against the petitioner for TWO WEEKS from receipt of a copy of the order. No precedent cases were cited and no monetary quantum was stated.

WP No. 17112 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-07-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER

WP No. 17112 of 2026 and WMP Nos.18402 & 18403 of 2026

M/s. Seshadri Protective Coatings, Rep. by Proprietor R.Prabhakaran, Plot No.217, TTC Nagar, Adhanur, Guduvanchery, Chennai-603 202.

..Petitioner

Vs

The Recovery Officer, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Office of Recovery Officer, No.143, Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

The Branch Manager, Karur Vysya Bank, Guduvancherry, Opp. to EB office, Chennai-603 202.

..Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order (Letter No.TN/ RECY/ 45G/ 51001187950001099/ CCR-120331) dated 17.11.2025 issued by the 1^st respondent and the consequential recovery proceedings initiated pursuant thereto quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the respondents to forbear from taking any coercive recovery action, including attachment or freezing of the petitioners bank accounts in any manner whatsoever.

__________ Page1 of 5

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

WP No. 17112 of 2026

For Petitioner(s): Mr. S. Kathiravan For Respondent(s): Mr. M. Palanimuthu (for R1)

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order (Letter No.TN/ RECY/ 45G/ 51001187950001099/ CCR-120331) dated 17.11.2025 issued by the first respondent and the consequential recovery proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, and seeking to quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has also sought a consequential direction forbearing the respondents from taking any coercive recovery action, including attachment or freezing of the petitioner’s bank accounts, in any manner whatsoever.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the address of the petitioner had changed and that, without giving any notice to the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed.

A perusal of the impugned order passed by the first respondent reveals that an effective alternative remedy lies before the Employees’ State Insurance (in short ‘ESI’) Tribunal (the Employees' Insurance Court) under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.

__________ Page2 of 5

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

WP No. 17112 of 2026

During the course of hearing, this Court directed the petitioner to approach the first respondent. It is informed that the petitioner has approached the first respondent and that the respondents are inclined to consider and settle the outstanding dues. However, the petitioner is yet to be afforded an opportunity of hearing.

In such circumstances, it is open to the petitioner either to pursue

the settlement before the first respondent or approach the ESI Tribunal to challenge the impugned order in the manner known to law.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court directs the respondent not to initiate any coercive action against the petitioner for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10-07-2026

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

klt

Page3 of 5

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

WP No. 17112 of 2026

To

The Recovery Officer, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Office of Recovery Officer, No.143, Sterling Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

The Branch Manager, Karur Vysya Bank, Guduvancherry, Opp. to EB office, Chennai-603 202.

__________ Page4 of 5

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

WP No. 17112 of 2026

K.SURENDER, J.

klt

WP No. 17112 of 2026 and WMP Nos.18402 & 18403 of 2026

10-07-2026

__________ Page5 of 5

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