SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 46645

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ, G.Arul Murugan, J
Saravana Housing Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Authorised Officer Karnataka Bank Limited – Respondent
WP No.16861 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.Suresh Kumar, A.B.Rjasekaran

High Courts should not issue blanket directions to Tribunals for early disposal of cases as it disrupts board seniority, unless exceptional circumstances of urgency are demonstrated to justify such intervention.

Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, requesting an expedited disposal of a Securitization Application pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, citing delays in adjudication. The Petitioner contended that the pending status of the application required judicial intervention to ensure timely relief. The Court found that the Tribunal is adequately empowered to regulate its own proceedings and prioritize cases based on seniority and urgency; thus, interfering with the Tribunal’s docket would prejudice other litigants awaiting adjudication. The issue addressed whether the High Court should issue a time-bound mandate for the disposal of a pending matter before a specialized Tribunal. The Court reasoned that judicial restraint is necessary to avoid disrupting the Tribunal’s board and to maintain a fair process, noting that the petitioner has the liberty to demonstrate specific urgency before the Tribunal itself. The writ petition stands disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an application for expedited hearing before the Tribunal.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks judicial intervention for expedited case disposal by a tribunal. (Para 1)
2. courts will not interfere with tribunal board management absent exceptional circumstances. (Para 2 , 3)
3. writ petition disposed of with liberty to apply for expedition before the tribunal. (Para 4)

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, to take up and dispose of S.A.No.407 of 2023, within a time frame fixed by this Court.

2. We have gone through the order sheets placed on record and find that the case is progressing. Any direction to expedite a specific case out of turn would disrupt the board of the Tribunal. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance that distinguishes its case from other litigants waiting in queue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal should prioritize cases based on their seniority, nature of urgency and statutory mandate. It is empowered to regulate its procedure and accelerate hearings if a genuine case of urgency is made out. Issuing blanket direction for quick disposal would put undue pressure on the Tribunal and, consequently, the persons who approached the Tribunal earlier would be left at a disadvantaged position.

3. We are, therefore, not inclined to give such a direction to decide the case within a time frame. However, the petitioner would get liberty to file appropriate application before the Tribunal to expedite the hearing.

4. With this liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top