Dismissed¶23

M.Rajendran v. the Authorised Officer

Madras HC27 Jul 2026WP/925/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No.925 of 2025; Madras High Court; decision date 27.07.2026; petitioner M.Rajendran vs Indian Bank (Authorised Officer, Tiruvannamalai) and M.Kannan; Article 226 Certiorarified Mandamus against DRAT Chennai order dated 19.12.2024 in IA No.484/2023 in AIR No.918/2023; deposit of 25% of sale notice amount (34,64,704/-); restoration application pending before DRAT; petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal as withdrawn with liberty to pursue the pending restoration application before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal; no order as to costs; interim application closed ¶23

M.Rajendran Vs the Authorised Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No.925 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,

¶6

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶9

WP No.925 of 2025 and WMP No.1112 of 2025

¶10

M.Rajendran .. Petitioner

¶11

-vs-

¶12

The Authorised Offier, Indian Bank, Zonal Office, IFSC Code: IDIB000T045 STR BSNL Building, Vellore Road, Tiruvannamalai.

¶13

M.Kannan .. Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the order passed in IA No.484/2023 in AIR No.918/2023 dated 19.12.2024 on the file of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and quash the same as unreasonable and arbitrary and consequently permit the petitioner to deposit 25% of the sale notice amount, i.e., 34,64,704/-.

¶15

For Petitioner : Ms.G.R.Sreemagal For Respondents : Mr.S.R.Sumathy Stdg. Counsel for R-1

¶16

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

WP No.925 of 2025

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order of dismissal of the waiver application as well as the main appeal, the petitioner has preferred an application for restoration before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, which is still pending. In view of the same, he seeks to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to pursue the restoration application.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim application stands closed.

¶24

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 27.07.2026

¶25

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sra

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

WP No.925 of 2025

¶29

¶30