Dismissed

Raj David v. the Authorized Officer

Madras HC13 Jul 2026WP/9279/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ under Article 226 restraining the recovery officer from acting under SARFAESI Act Section 14 regarding 1st respondent's property involved in 2nd respondent's loan. Court noted withdrawal seek by petitioner with liberty to approach DRT.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal within two weeks; interim order against Section 14 action continues till then.

Raj David Vs the Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.No.9279 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.07.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶7

W.P.No.9279 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.10302 of 2024

¶8

Raj David S/o.Late.C.K.Subburathinam, No.277, Dr.Radhakrishna Road, Tatabad, Coimbatore-641 012.

¶9

Petitioner

¶10

¶11

1.The Authorized Officer

¶12

M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., Having Office at Dare House, No.2, NSC Bose Road, Parrys, Chennai-600 001.

¶13

2.J.Sivakumar

¶14

S/o.Jagadheesan, B-16,GRG Nagar, Kalapatty, Coimbatore-641 014.

¶15

Respondents

¶16

_______________ Page 1 of 5_

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.9279 of 2024

¶19

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶20

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the 1st respondent from proceeding with petitioner’s property situated at Flat No.A-16, with super builtup area of 808 Sq.Ft., in the 1st Floor in ‘Lacasa Apartment’, GRG Nagar, Kalapatty, Coimbatore-641 014 having UDS of 452.6 Sq.Ft., of UDS out of 66 ½ cents of land comprised in SF No.433/1B, Kalapatty Village, Coimbatore District under the SARFAESI Act for the loan borrowed by the 2nd respondent under loan account No.X0HECOI00001547811 and H0HECOI00001988460.

¶21

For Petitioner: Mr.A.E.Ravichandran For Respondents: Mr.A.Harshavardhan for R1 R2 - No Appearance

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief:

¶25

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, in particular issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 1^st respondent from proceeding with petitioner’s property situated at Flat No.A-16, with super builtup area of 808 Sq. Ft., in the 1^st Floor in ‘Lacasa

¶26

_______________ Page 2 of 5_

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.9279 of 2024

¶29

Apartment’, GRG Nagar, Kalapatty, Coimbatore-641 014, having UDS of 452.6 Sq.Ft., of UDS out of 66 ½ cents of land comprised in SF No.433/1B, Kalapatty Village, Coimbatore District under the SARFAESI Act for the loan borrowed by the 2^nd respondent under loan account No.X0HECOI00001547811 and H0HECOI00001988460 and pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper considering the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”

¶30

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 informs that order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act has already been passed and the said order is neither challenged in the writ petition nor before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. He pointed out that this Court, vide order dated 5.4.2024, restrained the first respondent not to take any action pursuant to the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶31

According to us, the writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy.

¶32

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal in accordance with law.

¶33

_______________ Page 3 of 5_

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.9279 of 2024

¶36

Considering the fact that the interim order was in force for the

¶37

last two years, we grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal within a period of two weeks from today. Till then, the interim order granted earlier shall continue.

¶38

The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid

¶39

liberty. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶40

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

¶41

13.07.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr

¶42

To:

¶43

The Authorized Officer

¶44

M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., Having Office at Dare House, No.2, NSC Bose Road, Parrys, Chennai-600 001.

¶45

_______________ Page 4 of 5_

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.No.9279 of 2024

¶48

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

bbr

W.P.No.9279 of 2024

13.07.2026

_______________ Page 5 of 5_

¶53

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

Raj David v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj David v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Airports Authority of India, Vs Goldair India Private Limited

Vandana Parvez Vs The Government of India

G. Venkatesh, Vs Mr. Ganesan and 4 others

P.Balasubramaniam, Vs the District Collector

D.Shankaran Vs the General Manager

Aramirtham Vs N.Muthukumaran