W.P.No.49289 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.07.2026 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P.No.49289 of 2025 Asokan S/o.Late K.C.S. Kasi Nadar, No.14/86, West Mada Church Street, Royapuram, Chennai-600 013. Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Reserve Bank of India Department Of Supervision, Fort Glacis, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001. 2. KEB Hana Bank 4th Floor, Banneri Amman Towers, No.29, Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. 3. Rohit Nath @ Rohit Rabinderanath, Director, Alectrona Energy Pvt. Ltd, Residing at No.17, North Railway Terminus Road, Royapuram, Chennai-600 013 ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.49289 of 2025 4. Masseys Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Rep. by its Director, No.17, North Railway Terminus Road, Royapuram, Chennai-600013. 5. The District Collector Chennai District, Singaravelar Maligai, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001. 6. The District Revenue Officer Chennai District, Singaravelar Maligai, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001. 7. The Tahsildar Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai District. 8. The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034. 9. Chennai Sri Kalikambal Kamateeswar Devasthanam, Rep. by its Trustee, No.212, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai-600 001 Respondent(s) PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the sale notice dated 06.06.2024 and sale certificate dated 24.09.2024 bearing Document No.3013 of 2024 on the file of the Sub-Register, Royapuram, issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent Bank to ensure the 2nd respondent refunds the entire sale consideration of Rs.22,05,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Crores and Five Lakhs Only) ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.49289 of 2025 remitted by the petitioner together with interest at 12 percentage per annum. For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Murali Kumaran Senior Counsel for M/s.Aditya Chandramouli For Respondent(s):Mr.K.Kumaran Government Pleader for R5 to R7. Mr.Veerabathran Prasanth.M. Government Advocate (HR and CE) for R8 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The petitioner has approached this court under the expansive umbrella of Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash a Sale Notice dated 6.6.2024 and a subsequent registered Sale Certificate dated 24.9.2024 issued by the second respondent bank. He further seeks a consequential direction to the bank to refund his hard-earned auction consideration of Rs.22.05 Crore along with interest. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.49289 of 2025 2. At the threshold, the core question that stems up for our consideration is whether a private commercial entity, acting to recover its dues through statutory enforcement mechanisms, be subjected to the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of a High Court? 3.1. The nub of the matter is that the subject property, a commercial parcel of land measuring approximately 11 grounds and 2,365 square feet located in the heart of Royapuram, Chennai, was mortgaged by its owner to secure credit facilities granted by the second respondent bank, a private commercial banking institution. Following financial defaults, the borrower's account was declared as a non-performing asset (NPA), prompting the bank to invoke the provisions under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for brevity, "the SARFAESI Act"). 3.2. After numerous failed attempts to auction the property, the second respondent issued the impugned Sale Notice on 6.6.2024. The petitioner emerged as the successful bidder with an offer of Rs.22.05 Crore. Having complied with the financial ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.49289 of 2025 timelines, the bank executed a Sale Certificate in his favor on 24.9.2024, which was subsequently registered. 3.3. It is asserted that when the petitioner subsequently approached revenue authorities to update ownership records, he discovered that the property forms the subject matter of a long- standing civil suit, viz., O.S.No.12804 of 1996. 3.4. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association and others1; and (ii) Subodh C.Korde v. Union of India2. 4. The second respondent bank filed its counter affidavit and questioned the very maintainability of this petition. It is pleaded that the second respondent is a private banking enterprise executing a statutory right of asset recovery, its actions do not 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1295 2 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 3629 ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.49289 of 2025 possess the public character to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. To determine whether a writ of certiorarified mandamus can be issued in the present circumstances, we must look past the statutory provisions of the SARFAESI Act and look closely at the true nature of the relationship between the parties. Broadly, three fatal impediments stand in the way of the petitioner's choice of forum: (A) The second respondent is a private commercial banking entity. While it is undoubtedly regulated by the Reserve Bank of India to maintain monetary discipline, such regulatory oversight does not transform its private commercial operations into public functions or State actions. Article 226 of the Constitution of India is designated to hold public authorities accountable when they breach public duties. In enforcing an equitable mortgage against a defaulting borrower, the second respondent/bank is performing a purely commercial enforcement action ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.49289 of 2025 to secure private debts. It does not operate as an arm of the State, nor does it perform a public duty that carries the sovereign stamp of public interest. (B) The SARFAESI Act is a self-contained code. The Legislature has consciously provided a remedy under Section 17 of the Act by establishing the Debts Recovery Tribunal as the proper venue for any person, including an auction purchaser, who feels aggrieved by the measures adopted by a secured creditor. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned High Courts against bypassing this statutory machinery. Writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy and it cannot be used as a shortcut to bypass specialized tribunals. (C) The petitioner's grievances are rooted in claims of suppression of civil disputes and clouded title. These are disputed questions of fact that cannot be parsed through a cursory review of affidavits filed in ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.49289 of 2025 a writ proceeding. The determination of whether the bank acted in bad faith or whether the property is truly free from encumbrances, requires a comprehensive trial, the evaluation of documentary history, and the presentation of oral evidence, which cannot be determined by a writ court. 6. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Vijh (supra) is distinguishable from the present writ petition on facts and the nature of the rights asserted. While the said decision expands the reach of Article 226 of the Constitution of India by shifting the maintainability threshold from the formal identity of the respondent to the presence of a "public law element" and the nature of the function performed, no such public-law character or public duty exists in the present dispute. The present case involves a purely commercial property transaction, where the petitioner, as an auction purchaser, seeks the refund of bid money and the cancellation of a registered sale certificate. As this dispute is strictly governed by the self-contained statutory framework of the ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.49289 of 2025 SARFAESI Act, it completely lacks the public-law element required to invoke writ jurisdiction. 7. In Subodh C. Korde (supra), the Bombay High Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a private scheduled bank to enforce compliance with regulatory mandates issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The court distinguished traditional private wrongs from regulatory defaults by holding that while a private scheduled bank may not constitute a "State" under Article 12 or strictly perform sovereign functions in its routine operations, it operates under the supervisory control of the RBI under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Consequently, when a customer seeks the enforcement of mandatory RBI guidelines, such as the Master Circular on limiting customer liability in unauthorized electronic banking transactions, which are formulated in the larger public interest to mitigate cyber fraud, the bank's actions carry a distinct public law element. This public interest nexus effectively overrides preliminary objections concerning the bank's private status, thereby subjecting its failure to implement to the extraordinary judicial review of the writ court. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.49289 of 2025 8. However, in the case at hand, the investment of Rs.22.05 crore into a property entangled in civil litigation is undoubtedly a heavy burden to bear. However, a writ court cannot step outside its constitutional mandate to correct a commercial transaction gone wrong involving a private bank. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner lies elsewhere, viz., either before the Debts Recovery Tribunal or through a properly instituted civil suit before the appropriate Court. 9. The aforesaid view of ours is fortified by a decision of the Supreme Court in Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir3, wherein it is held as under: “18. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that a writ petition against the private financial institution — ARC — the appellant herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proposed action/actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act can be said to be not maintainable. In the present case, the ARC proposed to take action/actions under the SARFAESI Act to recover the borrowed amount as a secured creditor. The ARC as such 3 (2022) 5 SCC 345 ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.49289 of 2025 cannot be said to be performing public functions which are normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. During the course of a commercial transaction and under the contract, the bank/ARC lent the money to the borrowers herein and therefore the said activity of the bank/ARC cannot be said to be as performing a public function which is normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. If proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any proposed action is to be taken and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, borrower has to avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would lie and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable. ...” [emphasis supplied] 10. This court cannot allow its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to be converted into a civil court of first instance to resolve property ownership disputes or factual allegations of suppression, especially when the Legislature has established dedicated judicial bodies specifically equipped to look into these grievances. 11. As a sequel, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner is granted liberty to pursue his ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.49289 of 2025 grievances before the appropriate legal forum in accordance with the law. No costs. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 17.07.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sasi To: 1. Reserve Bank of India Department Of Supervision, Fort Glacis, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001. 2. The District Collector Chennai District, Singaravelar Maligai, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001. 3. The District Revenue Officer Chennai District, Singaravelar Maligai, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001. 4. The Tahsildar Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai District. 5. The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034. ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.49289 of 2025 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J. (sasi) W.P.No.49289 of 2025 17.07.2026 ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis