Dismissed¶32

S.Basheer Ahamed v. The Authorized Officer

Madras HC3 Mar 2026WP(MD)/5795/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI Act 2002; Section 13(2) demand notice reissued after DRT security application S.A.No.291 of 2023 dismissed for default; earlier Section 14 possession notice challenged; interim stay made absolute on payment; HDFC Ltd second demand notice dated 28.01.2026 alleged fraudulent and suppressive; Article 226 writ of certiorarified mandamus against bank notice; writ dismissed, petitioner directed to Tribunal route; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; N. Sathish Kumar, J.; M. Jothiraman, J.; 03.03.2026; W.P(MD)No.5795 of 2026; W.M.P.(MD)Nos.4815 & 4817 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

None; however the petitioner was told it is open to him to challenge the notice in the manner known to law before the appropriate Tribunal, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without costs. ¶32

S.Basheer Ahamed Vs The Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the second demand notice (ref: 213653, dated 28.01.2026) issued by the Bank under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was fraudulently issued while suppressing the earlier proceedings, and therefore illegal, incompetent, without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

¶25

Court's answer

Since the S.A. challenging the earlier Section 14 possession had already been dismissed for default and the Bank thereafter issued the notice once again, it cannot be said that the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act is fraudulent; consequently the writ petition has no merits.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶32

Key takeaways

It remains open to the petitioner to challenge the notice in the manner known to law before the appropriate Tribunal; no costs were imposed and the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.obiter¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), order made by N. Sathish Kumar, J. (bench: N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman, JJ.), 03.03.2026 — W.P(MD)No.5795 of 2026 DISMISSED. The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the Bank's second demand notice (ref: 213653, dated 28.01.2026) issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, contending it was fraudulent and suppressed earlier proceedings. Earlier, a possession notice had been acted upon under Section 14 and challenged before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in S.A.No.291 of 2023; an interim order required payment, the interim stay was made absolute on payment, but the S.A. was subsequently dismissed for default, after which the Bank issued the notice afresh. Holding that the reissued Section 13(2) notice could not be said to be fraudulent, the Court found no merits in the writ petition, dismissed it without costs, and left the petitioner free to challenge the notice in the manner known to law before the appropriate Tribunal. Connected W.M.P.(MD)Nos.4815 & 4817 of 2026 closed.

¶1

W.P(MD)No. 5795 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.03.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No. 5795 of 2026

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.(MD) No.4815 & 4817 of 2026

¶9

S.Basheer Ahamed ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Authorized Officer Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd No.406, Sakthi Sivam Plaza, Pumpting Station Road, 9^th Cross Road K.K.Nagar East Madurai – 625 001.

¶12

2.The Regional Manager Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd 34, Sri Nithayakalyani Tower Krishnarayar Tank, North Veli Street, Madurai – 625 020.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

W.P(MD)No. 5795 of 2026

¶17

PRAYER:

¶18

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 pertaining to the impugned second demand notice ref: 213653 of the first respondent dated 28.01.2026 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further consequently, direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to initiate any coercive action against the petitioner under SARFAESI Act based on the illegal second demand notice ref:216353 dated 28.01.2026.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.Mohamed Azarudeen Sharof

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

¶22

The petitioner challenges the notice issued by the Bank under

¶23

Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶24

The main contention raised in this writ petition is that the notice

¶25

has been issued fraudulently, suppressing the earlier proceedings.

¶26

We have gone through the entire papers. Initially, a possession

¶27

notice had been issued and the possession has also been taken under Section 14 of the Act, which has been challenged before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in S.A.No.291 of 2023, wherein there was an interim

¶28

2/4

¶29

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

¶30

W.P(MD)No. 5795 of 2026

¶31

order for the payment of certain amount. Since the petitioner has made the payment, the interim stay has been made absolute. Later, the very S.A. was dismissed for default. After the appeal has been dismissed, now once again the notice has been issued by the Bank. Hence, we are of the view that it cannot be said that the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act is fraudulent. Hence, we do not find any merits in this writ petition.

¶32

With these observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the notice in the manner known to law before the appropriate Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶33

NCS : Yes/No [N.S.K., J.] & [M.J.R., J.] Index : Yes / No 03.03.2026 Internet : Yes / No apd

¶34

3/4

¶35

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

¶36

W.P(MD)No. 5795 of 2026

¶37

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

¶38

apd