Smt.R.Mallika, M/s.C.Prakasam, S.Ananthan vs THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, — WP/5707/2026

Case under Others Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 10th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA010354902026

Filing Number

WP/26239/2026

Filing Date

11-Feb-2026

Registration No

WP/5707/2026

Registration Date

12-Feb-2026

Judge

Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul Murugan

Coram

Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul Murugan

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

Banking ( 15 )

Sub-Category

DRAT Orders ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

WRITSECTION

Decision Date

10-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Others Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Smt.R.Mallika, M/s.C.Prakasam, S.Ananthan

  2. 2.VPR Ramesh,

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,

  2. 2.The Authorized Officer/Sale Officer,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Jun-2026

    Honourable The Chief JUSTICE,Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul MuruganView PDF

    Summary of WP/5707/2026 The Madras High Court dismissed the petitioners' writ petition challenging a DRAT order rejecting their appeal for non-compliance with mandatory pre-deposit requirements under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that neither the DRAT nor the High Court has authority to waive or reduce pre-deposit below the statutory minimum of 25% of debt, regardless of medical hardship or financial distress, as this would violate mandatory statutory provisions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Feb-2026

    For Admission (Wp)

    Honourable Mr Justice R. Suresh Kumar , Honourable Mr.Justice Shamim Ahmed

  4. 11-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/5707/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of WP/5707/2026 The Madras High Court dismissed the petitioners' writ petition challenging a DRAT order rejecting their appeal for non-compliance with mandatory pre-deposit requirements under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that neither the DRAT nor the High Court has authority to waive or reduce pre-deposit below the statutory minimum of 25% of debt, regardless of medical hardship or financial distress, as this would violate mandatory statutory provisions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case