Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 15 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Mallika, wife of P.M. Shekharan, residing at New No.35, Old No.13, Mint Subbarayan Street, Old Washermenpet, Chennai – 600021, filed writ petition W.P.No.26117 of 2026 and related WMP Nos. 28516, 28519, 28774 under Article 226 seeking certiorari and mandamus to quash a forfeiture communication dated 15‑04‑2026 issued by Repco Home Finance Ltd (respondents) which forfeited Rs 10,79,000 auction bid amount paid in an e‑auction on 30‑12‑2025.
  • Respondents: Repco Home Finance Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, corporate office (3rd Floor, Alexander Square, New No.2 (Old No.34 and 35) Sardar Patel Rd, Guindy, Chennai – 600032) and the Branch Manager at the registered office (REPCO Tower, No.33, North Usman Rd, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600017).
  • Issue: The petitioner could not mobilise the remaining 75% of the sale consideration within the stipulated time and sought an extension; on 15‑04‑2026 the respondents informed her that the 25% deposit she had paid was forfeited for failure to pay the balance. The petitioner sought return of the balance sale consideration and registration of the sale deed for the property at VGN Platina, Ambigai Nagar, Ayapakkam, Ambattur, Chennai.
  • The Court observed that the respondents had invoked provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Accordingly, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to challenge the forfeiture.
  • The Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Agarwal Tracom (P) Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank (2018) 1 SCC 626, which held that an auction‑purchaser aggrieved by forfeiture of deposit must seek relief under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT, and that the writ court is justified in dismissing the writ petition where an alternative statutory remedy exists.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to file an application before the DRT under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act within the statutory period, with the limitation period to be computed excluding the time spent pursuing the writ petition in this Court.
  • No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Topics: SARFAESI Act, Debt Recovery Tribunal