V.Raghupathy B.M.Subash, S. GAYATHRI ,S. BHARANIDHARAN ,P. VETRIVEL vs The Authorized officer — WP/20631/2026
Case under Others Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 08th June 2026.
CNR: HCMA011157512026
Filing Number
WP/84461/2026
Filing Date
25-05-2026
Registration No
WP/20631/2026
Registration Date
25-05-2026
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
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, ( 33 )
Judicial Branch
WRITSECTION
Decision Date
08th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
V.Raghupathy B.M.Subash, S. GAYATHRI ,S. BHARANIDHARAN ,P. VETRIVEL
Respondent(s)
The Authorized officer
Adv. VIDE C/O DT:27.05.2026 1123
The Manager
Hearing History
Judge: Honourable The CHIEF JUSTICE , Honourable Mr.Justice G.ARUL MURUGAN
ADMISSION (WP)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-05-2026 | ADMISSION (WP) |
Orders
Case Summary: WP/20631/2026 Court Decision: The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The petitioner, who participated in a Canara Bank e-auction and paid ₹26 lakhs (EMD + 25% installment), sought refund after the bank forfeited his deposit when he couldn't pay the balance 75% due to the property being under EPF attachment—information not disclosed pre-auction. The court held that since the bank's actions fall under the SARFAESI Act's Section 13(4), the proper remedy is an application under Section 17(1) before the DRT, not a writ petition, following Supreme Court precedent in *Agarwal Tracom v. Punjab National Bank*. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WP/20631/2026 Court Decision: The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The petitioner, who participated in a Canara Bank e-auction and paid ₹26 lakhs (EMD + 25% installment), sought refund after the bank forfeited his deposit when he couldn't pay the balance 75% due to the property being under EPF attachment—information not disclosed pre-auction. The court held that since the bank's actions fall under the SARFAESI Act's Section 13(4), the proper remedy is an application under Section 17(1) before the DRT, not a writ petition, following Supreme Court precedent in *Agarwal Tracom v. Punjab National Bank*. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts