2026:MHC:1137 WP No. 11006 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER WP No. 11006 of 2026 1. C.Shanmuga Sundaram 2. S.Raja Lakshmi 3. Kavitha 4. Naleni 5. Sambhavi 6. Renukha parameshvari ..Petitioner(s) Vs 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 ..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 223 of the Constitution of India issuing writ of certiorari calling for all the records pertaining to the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 09.02.2026 issued by the respondent bank and quash the entire proceedings of the same as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Balaji Thirumoorthy https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 11006 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 7 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) 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 others1. Paragraph Nos.97, 98, 110 and 110.1 of the said decision would be relevant in this context and they have been extracted hereunder:- 97. 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. This   Court in Satyawati   Tondon [United   Bank   of   India v. Satyawati   Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 260] made the following observations : (SCC pp. 123 & 128, paras 43-45 & 55) “43. Unfortunately,   the   High   Court   [Satyawati Tondon v. State   of   U.P.,   2009   SCC   OnLine  All   2608] overlooked   the   settled   law   that   the   High   Court   will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with 1 (2024) 2 SCC 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 11006 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 7 the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also   envisage   constitution   of   quasi-judicial   bodies   for redressal   of   the   grievance   of   any   aggrieved   person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that   before   availing   remedy   under   Article   226   of   the Constitution,   a   person   must   exhaust   the   remedies available under the relevant statute. 44. While   expressing   the   aforesaid   view,   we   are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under   Article  226  of  the   Constitution  to  issue   to   any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of   the   rules   of   self-imposed   restraint   evolved   by   this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while   exercising   power   under   Article   226   of   the Constitution. 45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 11006 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 7 filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance. *** 55. It   is   a   matter   of   serious   concern   that   despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” 98. In CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603] , this Court in para 15 made the following observations : (SCC p. 611, para 15) “15. Thus,   while   it   can   be   said   that   this   Court   has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance   with   the   provisions   of   the   enactment   in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial   procedure,   or   has   resorted   to   invoke   the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case [Thansingh Nathmal v. Supdt. of Taxes, 1964 SCC OnLine   SC   13]   ,   Titaghur   Paper   Mills   case   [Titaghur https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 11006 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 7 Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains   a   mechanism   for   redressal   of   grievance  still holds   the   field. Therefore,   when   a   statutory   forum   is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should   not   be   entertained   ignoring   the   statutory dispensation.” 110. We summarise our final conclusion as under: 110.1. The High Court was not justified in exercising its writ   jurisdiction   under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution more   particularly   when   the   borrowers   had   already availed the alternative remedy available to them under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 2. Granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal, present writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.) 17-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD To The Authorised Officer Axis Bank Limited, Retail Lending and payment Group (South Zonal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 11006 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 7 office / Branch), 2nd Floor, Door No. 31, Old No. 14, South MAda Street, Mylapore, Chennai 04 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 11006 of 2026 __________ Page7 of 7 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND K.SURENDER, J. GD WP No. 11006 of 2026 17-03-2026 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis