Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37768
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Suresh Kumar, N.Senthilkumar, JJ
S.Vijayakumar – Appellant
Versus
ICICI Bank Limited – Respondent
W.P.No.15632 of 2026 | W.M.P.Nos.16845 & 16848 of 2026 | Cr.M.P. No.3221 of 2025 | S.A.No.149 of 2026
For Petitioners: Mr.Antipasmoses, Mr.N.John Mathius
For Respondent: Mr.A.Damodharan, Standing Counsel
Writ petition dismissed for suppressing pending DRT proceedings and non-compliance with conditional stay, constituting abuse of process.
Headnote:Under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order on 23.01.2026. Petitioners challenged this via writ petition under Article 226, alleging it was mechanical and violative of natural justice. Court found petitioners had priorly approached Debts Recovery Tribunal, securing conditional interim stay on 05.03.2026 by depositing Rs.10 lakhs, which was not complied with. Key issue: Whether writ petition lies despite pending Securitisation Application and non-disclosure. Court observed suppression of DRT proceedings and non-compliance with its condition as abuse of process. Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to respondent Bank within two weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge cjm order under sarfaesi s.14(1) via writ, but prior drt conditional stay obtained. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. non-disclosure of drt proceedings and non-compliance deemed abuse of process. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. writ dismissed with costs for process abuse. (Para 6) |
(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry in Cr.M.P.No.3221 of 2025 dated 23.01.2026, under Section 14(1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002.
2. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank that, as against the very same order, the petitioners have already filed a Securitisation Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, in S.A.No.149 of 2026, which was taken up urgently and an interim order was passed on 05.03.2026.
3. By order dated 05.03.2026, the Debts Recovery Tribunal has passed a conditional order directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to establish their bona fides and granted an interim order of stay. It has further been made clear that, if the said payment is not made on or before 27.03.2026, the interim order of stay shall automatically stand vacated.
4. Though the petitioners have secured the said order, it seems that they have not complied with the condition imposed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and after one month, they have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, suppressing the pendency of S.A.No.149 of 2026 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, where they secured the interim order on condition.
5. It is a clear case of abuse of process of law, where it is not only the petitioners have approached this Court instead of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal but also suppressing the fact that the petitioners have already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal and got an interim order by order dated 05.03.2026 of course on condition which has not been complied with and with that default, the petitioners have moved the present writ petition challenging the very same order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry dated 23.01.2026.
6. In that view of the matter and on the basis of the aforestated facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), payable to the respondent Bank within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
