Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 12 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Petition: W.P.No.13201 of 2023 filed by R. Chandra, daughter of late M. Sengodan, under Article 226 challenging the order dated 20‑01‑2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).
  • Respondents: Indian Bank (represented by Chief Manager/Authorized Officer, Komarapalayam, Namakkal District) and A. Poongulali, Advocate‑Commissioner.
  • Earlier High Court Order (27‑04‑2023): Directed petitioner to (i) file an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore within two weeks questioning the correctness of proceedings under Sections 13(2), 13(4) and 14 of the Act; (ii) deposit the full loan amount of Rs 1,56,19,000 together with stamp duty and registration charges within two weeks; (iii) upon compliance, the secured creditor could not disturb petitioner’s possession of the property, otherwise the creditor could proceed further.
  • Supreme Court Intervention: Auction purchaser filed SLP(C) No.15880 of 2023; on 12‑11‑2025 the Supreme Court set aside the 27‑04‑2023 order, held that the High Court had violated natural justice by not putting the third‑party purchaser on notice, and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration after proper notice to all parties.
  • Petitioner’s Counsel Submission: Stated that an application S.A.No.328 of 2023 was already pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, and requested the Tribunal to expedite the decision.

Final Outcome

  • The Madras High Court, by order of Chief Justice SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI and Justice G.ARUL MURUGAN, declined to entertain the writ petition further, observing that parallel proceedings on the same impugned order cannot run simultaneously.
  • The Court directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore to decide the pending application S.A.No.328 of 2023 “as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months” from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
  • The writ petition was disposed of without any opinion on the merits; no order as to costs was made and all interim applications were closed.

Topics: SARFAESI Act, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Supreme Court Remand