Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, C.Shanmuga Sundaram and others, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court challenging an e-auction sale notice dated 09.02.2026 issued by the respondent, Axis Bank Limited, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the sale notice as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and in violation of principles of natural justice. The court, comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Surender, dismissed the petition at the threshold, holding that a sale notice issued under the SARFAESI Act is not amenable to writ proceedings under Article 226. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited and others, (2024) 2 SCC 1, and extracted paragraphs 97, 98, 110, and 110.1 from that judgment. The court noted that the SARFAESI Act is a complete code providing an effective alternative remedy under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and the High Court should not entertain writ petitions when such remedy is available. The court also referred to the principle laid down in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110, that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of bank dues. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty granted to the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Alternative Remedy - Writ petition under Article 226 challenging e-auction sale notice under SARFAESI Act is not maintainable in view of effective alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act - The SARFAESI Act is a complete code providing for quasi-judicial redressal - High Court must not entertain such petitions (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an e-auction sale notice issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioners were granted liberty to avail the statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act.
Law Points
- Writ petition under Article 226 not maintainable when effective alternative remedy exists under SARFAESI Act
- SARFAESI Act is a complete code
- High Court should not entertain petitions challenging sale notices under SARFAESI Act
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (03) 264
S. M. Subramaniam, K. Surender
C.Shanmuga Sundaram, S.Raja Lakshmi, Kavitha, Naleni, Sambhavi, Renukha parameshvari
The Authorised Officer, Axis Bank Limited, Retail Lending and payment Group (South Zonal office / Branch), 2nd Floor, Door No. 31, Old No. 14, South MAda Street, Mylapore, Chennai 04
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an e-auction sale notice issued under the SARFAESI Act.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the e-auction sale notice dated 09.02.2026 issued by the respondent bank.
Filing Reason
The petitioners alleged that the e-auction sale notice was arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and in violation of principles of natural justice.
Issues
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against a sale notice issued under the SARFAESI Act when an effective alternative remedy exists under Section 17 of the Act.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the sale notice was arbitrary and illegal.
The court, however, did not consider the merits as it held the petition not maintainable due to availability of alternative remedy.
Ratio Decidendi
A sale notice issued under the SARFAESI Act is not amenable to writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because the SARFAESI Act provides an effective alternative remedy under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The High Court should not entertain such petitions in view of the settled law that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of bank dues.
Judgment Excerpts
The present writ petition has been instituted challenging the E-auction sale notice dated 09.02.2026 issued by the respondent under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Sale notice issued under SARFAESI Act is not amenable to writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the judgment of Celir LLP Vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited and others.
This Court has time and again, reminded the High Courts that they should not entertain petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed directly before the Madras High Court under Article 226 challenging the e-auction sale notice. The court dismissed it at the admission stage without issuing notice to the respondent, holding it not maintainable.
Acts & Sections
- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002: Section 17
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 223
