##PAGE1##

W.P.No.50486 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26.12.2025

C O R A M

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

W.P.No.50486 of 2025

and

W.M.P.Nos.56530 & 56531 of 2025

M/s.Vassi Palaze

Represented by its Proprietor

C.Sivagnanam

S/o.Chockalingam

Plot No.3, CMDA Town Centre

Maraimalainagar, Kattankulathur

Chennai-603 203. ... Petitioner

-vs-

The Authorised Officer

Indian Overseas Bank

Adayar Branch (Br.Code : 0002)

No.12, Sardar Patel Road

Adayar, Chennai-600 020. ... Respondent

Prayer :

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for

issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the

impugned auction sale notice dated 09.12.2025 made in Reference

No.Br/NPA/SARFAESI/2025-26 served on the petitioner on 24.12.2025,

quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of rules and principles of

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 02:18:48 pm )

W.P.No.50486 of 2025

natural justice.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Kannan Kumar

For Respondent : Mr.J.A.Doke Melvin

*****

O R D E R

(By.S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.,)

The writ has been instituted challenging the sale notice dated

09.12.2025 issued under SARFAESI Act. No writ would lie against the

action initiated under SARFAESI Act by the competent authority.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the

Debts Recovery Tribunal is functioning and therefore, the present writ

petition is not maintainable.

3. The legal principle in this regard has been settled by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Celir LLP Vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai)

Private Limited and others reported in (2024) 2 SCC 1, and relevant

portions are extracted hereunder.

“97.This Court has time and again, reminded the

High Courts that they should not entertain petition under

Article 226 ofthe Constitution if an effective remedy is

available to the aggrieved person under the provisions of

the SARFAESI Act. This Court in Satyawati Tondon

[United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8

SCC 110 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 260] made the following

observations : (SCC pp. 123 & 128, paras 43-45 & 55)

“43. Unfortunately, the High Court [Satyawati

Tondon v. State of U.P., 2009 SCC OnLine All 2608]

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/12/2025 02:18:48 pm )

W.P.No.50486 of 2025

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 Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a

code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain

comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but

also envisage constitution of quasijudicial bodies for

redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person.

Therefore, in all such cases, the 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.

44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are

conscious that the powers conferred upon the High

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to

any person or authority, including in appropriate cases,

any Government, directions, orders or writs including the

five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the

rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are

very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise

of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be

oblivious of the rules of selfimposed restraint evolved by

this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in

view while exercising power under Article 226 of the

Constituti