Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Suresh Kumar, N. Senthilkumar, JJ
Smt.R.Mallika – Appellant
Versus
The Authorized Officer, IDBI Bank Ltd, Retail Recovery, Regional Office – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to sarfaesi sale notice via writ petition. (Para 1) |
| 2. auction failed; writ petition infructuous. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. future grievances via sarfaesi, not article 226. (Para 5) |
| 4. writ dismissed without costs. (Para 6) |
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
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
