Dismissed¶36

Shanura Begum .a v. Magma Fincorp Limited

SARFAESI Act – Notice under Section 13(2) – challenge under Article 226

Madras HC6 Feb 2026WP(MD)/14788/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P(MD)No.14788 of 2023 (connected W.M.P(MD)Nos.12473 & 12474 of 2023); A.Shanura Begum v. Magma Fincorp Limited; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; decided 06.02.2026; coram G.R.Swaminathan J. (author) and R.Kalaimathi J.; SARFAESI Act Section 13(2) notice; possession Notice dated 10.06.2021; Loan Agreement No.HM/0128/H/17/100222 dated 30.09.2021; Article 226 writ petition not maintainable, alternative remedy before Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT Act); United Bank of India Vs Satyawati Tondon & Others, 2010 (8) SCC 110, relied on; writ petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. ¶36

Shanura Begum .a Vs Magma Fincorp Limited — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.14788 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI W.P(MD)No.14788 of 2023

¶8

and

¶9

W.M.P(MD)Nos.12473 & 12474 of 2023

A.Shanura Begum

... Petitioner

Vs.

Magma Fincorp Limited, No.24, Part Street, Kolkatta – 700 016.

¶14

... Respondent

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records impugned possession Notice dated 10.06.2021 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently restraining the respondent from taking further actions under SARFAESI ACT pertaining to the Loan Agreement No.HM/0128/H/17/100222 dated 30.09.2021.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sharath

¶17

For Respondent : Mr.V.Kasirajan

¶18

1/5

¶19

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

¶20

W.P(MD)No.14788 of 2023

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

¶23

Heard both sides.

¶24

2.What is under challenge is a mere notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶25

3.It is well settled that a notice issued under Section 13(2) cannot be assailed. In any event, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2010 (8) SCC 110 (United Bank of India Vs Satyawati Tondon & Others) had held as follows:

¶26

“43.The High Court 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

¶27

2/5

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(MD)No.14788 of 2023

¶30

Legislatures for recovery of such dues are code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, 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.

¶31

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 SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial 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.”

¶32

4.The remedy of the writ petitioner is only to go before the jurisdictional Debt Recovery Tribunal. The writ petition is not maintainable.

¶33

3/5

¶34

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

¶35

W.P(MD)No.14788 of 2023

¶36

5.This Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,

¶37

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.