Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33852
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
Jesuraja – Appellant
Versus
The Authorised Officer, Shriram Finance Limited – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.8945 of 2026 | W.M.P.(MD)Nos.7191 and 7192 of 2026
For Petitioner: Mr.J.Sivaram
Writ petition premature without exhausting statutory remedies like reply and appeal to Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged a demand notice issued under relevant financial recovery provisions by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking certiorari to quash the notice. Essential facts include the notice dated 07.01.2026 and the petitioner's failure to pursue statutory remedies. The court found the petition premature as the petitioner did not submit a reply or exhaust appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The court framed the issue as whether the writ petition was maintainable without availing statutory remedies. The ratio decidendi emphasized that the proper course is to reply to the notice and appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal before approaching the High Court, rendering direct writ intervention inappropriate. The writ petition is dismissed, and connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispense notice, final disposal by consent. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. premature without exhausting statutory remedies. (Para 4) |
| 3. dismiss writ, close miscellaneous petitions. (Para 5) |
This writ petition is filed challenging the demand notice dated 07.01.2026 issued by the respondent.
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 filed challenging the demand notice issued by the respondent herein. The proper course to be adopted by the petitioner is to submit his reply along with all necessary particulars before the respondent herein, and thereafter avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Without availing such opportunities and without submitting his explanation, the petitioner has prematurely approached this Court.
Hence, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
5.Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
