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.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA011157512026

Filing Number

WP/84461/2026

Filing Date

25-May-2026

Registration No

WP/20631/2026

Registration Date

25-May-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

08-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Others Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.V.Raghupathy B.M.Subash, S. GAYATHRI ,S. BHARANIDHARAN ,P. VETRIVEL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Authorized officer

    Adv. VIDE C/O DT:27.05.2026 1123

  2. 2.The Manager

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Jun-2026

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

    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.

  3. 27-May-2026

    Honourable Mr Justice G. R. SWAMINATHAN,Honourable Mr.Justice V. LakshminarayananView PDF

  4. 27-May-2026

    Admission (Wp)

    Honourable Mr Justice G. R. Swaminathan , Honourable Mr.Justice V. Lakshminarayanan

  5. 25-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/20631/2026

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case