Sudha RK vs M/s. IIFL Home Finance Ltd., — WP/17415/2026

Case under Others Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 01st June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA010404382026

Filing Number

WP/29917/2026

Filing Date

17-Feb-2026

Registration No

WP/17415/2026

Registration Date

28-Apr-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

DRT Orders ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

WRITSECTION

Decision Date

01-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Others Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sudha RK

    Adv. P.Jesusmoris Ravi, B.VADIVAZHAGAN,P. VARSHA,VISHNU P,J.PRAVIN,R.Asokan

  2. 2.Ranjith Kumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M/s. IIFL Home Finance Ltd.,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Jun-2026

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

    The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition on grounds of maintainability, holding that the SARFAESI Act provides an alternative statutory remedy through the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), which petitioners must exhaust instead of approaching the High Court. The court found that petitioners' grievance concerning discrepancies between oral proceedings and docket recordings at the DRT is a factual matter properly cognizable by the DRAT under Section 18 of the Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Jun-2026

    For Admission

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

  4. 17-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/17415/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition on grounds of maintainability, holding that the SARFAESI Act provides an alternative statutory remedy through the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), which petitioners must exhaust instead of approaching the High Court. The court found that petitioners' grievance concerning discrepancies between oral proceedings and docket recordings at the DRT is a factual matter properly cognizable by the DRAT under Section 18 of the Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case