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

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]

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 Constitution.

45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should ent