Writ petition under Article 226 not maintainable against SARFAESI sale notice due to alternate remedy under Section 17 before DRT.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Parthasarathy Standing Counsel ORDER (Order of the Court was made by R.Suresh Kumar J.)

Challenging the sale notice dated 18.02.2026, whereby sale has been fixed on 25.03.2026, the present writ petition has been filed.

2.1. It is opposed by Mr.S.Parthasarathy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, on the ground that, as against the impugned sale notice, legal course is available to the petitioner, where the petitioners could approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing a SA under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002,, 1For brevity, hereinafter referred as “the SARFAESI Act, 2002”. therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.

2.2. He would also submit that, totally, there is a due of more than Rs.12 crores, for which, already, an earlier sale notice has been issued, which has been stayed by this Court, where, as a conditional order, Rs.1 crore was directed to be deposited in two instalments, however, even the first instalment so far has not been deposited.

3. Be that as it may, insofar as the present sale notice is concerned, as stated by Mr.S.Parthasarathy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Bank, that on 25.03.2026, there were no bidders and therefore, the auction notice became infructuous, hence, the Bank is contemplating to issue a fresh auction notice.

4. The said development is recorded and therefore, the present move made by the petitioners has become infructuous. Hence, this writ petition, on that ground, is liable to be dismissed apart from the other ground of non-maintainability of the writ petition in view of the alternate remedy available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

5. Therefore, it is observed that, in case any fresh auction sale notice is issued by the respondent Bank, against which if there is any grievance to the petitioners, they can very well agitate the issue in the manner known to law, especially under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and not by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.9604 and 9606 of 2026 are closed. W.M.P.No.9602 of 2026, petition filed to permit the petitioners to file a single writ petition, stands ordered, inasmuch as the petitioners have paid separate set of Court fees.