Dismissed¶26

Meenakshi v. The Deputy General Manager

Madras HC27 Feb 2026WP(MD)/5574/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), W.P.(MD) No.5574 of 2026, decided 27.02.2026 — certiorari challenge under Article 226 to bank auction sale notice dated 06.02.2026 (Doc No.NIL) issued by Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. to recover loan amount by sale of secured asset; dismissed for want of locus standi, the petitioner being the earlier defaulted auction purchaser; no costs; connected W.M.P.(MD) Nos.4650 & 4651 of 2026 closed. Keywords: locus standi, auction sale notice, secured asset, loan recovery, certiorari, natural justice, Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank.

What did the court decide?

On a perusal of the records, the petitioner was found to be the earlier defaulted auction purchaser, and the reasons stated by her to interfere with the impugned auction notice were unsustainable. ¶21

Meenakshi Vs The Deputy General Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.5574 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.02.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.5574 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.4650 & 4651 of 2026

Meenakshi

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Deputy General Manager Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. Regional Office Thillai Nagar 11^th Cross Trichy District 2.The Branch Manager Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. 235/1, Periyakadal Street Mannargudi Thiruvayyar District ... Respondents

¶11

_____________ Page 1 of 4_

¶12

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

¶13

W.P.(MD) No.5574 of 2026

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari to call for records relating to the impugned sale notification issued by the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings Doc No.NIL dated 06.02.2026 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mathavan

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

[Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]

¶19

The auction sale notice issued by the respondent – Bank, dated 06.02.2026, to put the secured asset under auction to recover the loan amount, is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶20

2. A perusal of the records shows that the petitioner is none other

¶21

than the earlier defaulted auction purchaser. The reasons stated by the petitioner to interfere with the impugned auction notice are unsustainable.

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.5574 of 2026

¶25

The petitioner has no locus to interfere with the impugned auction process. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition.