Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33833
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
Dhinakaran Kachaleeswaran – Appellant
Versus
The Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, Ramalinga Nagar Branch, Tiruchirappalli-620 017 – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.8745 of 2026 | Crl.M.P.No.1922 of 2025
For Petitioner: Mr.B.Priyanka
For Respondents:
Writ petition against SARFAESI Section 14 order not maintainable due to alternative remedy before DRT.
Headnote:Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), Section 14. Petitioner challenged order of Chief Judicial Magistrate passed under Section 14 SARFAESI Act assisting bank in taking possession of secured asset. Court found writ petition not maintainable due to availability of alternative remedy before Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Issues: Maintainability of writ petition against Section 14 order under SARFAESI Act. Ratio: Effective alternative remedy under SARFAESI Act before DRT precludes High Court interference via writ jurisdiction. Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural disposal without notice by consent. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. writ not maintainable; direct to drt. (Para 4 , 5) |
This writ petition is filed challenging the order made by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappallin in Crl.M.P.No.1922 of 2025 dated 17.04.2025 underSection 14of theSARFAESI Act, 2002.
2.In view of the order proposed to be passed in this writ petition, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.
3.By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission itself.
4.At the outset, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal as against the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
5.In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The petitioner shall redress its grievances in the manner known to law before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
