R.Kumar M/S. R.Sankarasubbu, A.Ramesh-MS/2411/2010,P.Loganathan-MS/3836/2012,A.Sivakumar-MS/2299/2013,V.Jothi Lakshmi-MS/2608/2008,S.Jeevanantham-MS/399/2015,S.Mathivanan-MS/2600/2017,SELVA KISHORE.G ,NARESH .B vs The Authorised officer — WP/20749/2026

Case under Others Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 02nd June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA011157912026

Filing Number

WP/84498/2026

Filing Date

25-May-2026

Registration No

WP/20749/2026

Registration Date

26-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

02-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Others Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.R.Kumar M/S. R.Sankarasubbu, A.Ramesh-MS/2411/2010,P.Loganathan-MS/3836/2012,A.Sivakumar-MS/2299/2013,V.Jothi Lakshmi-MS/2608/2008,S.Jeevanantham-MS/399/2015,S.Mathivanan-MS/2600/2017,SELVA KISHORE.G ,NARESH .B

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Authorised officer

  2. 2.The Managing Director

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Jun-2026

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

    Case Summary: WP/20749/2026 Court Decision: The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable on three grounds: (1) a writ under Article 226 cannot be filed against a private Asset Reconstruction Company; (2) the petitioner's prayer improperly sought certiorari relief under the guise of mandamus; and (3) the SARFAESI Act provides an alternative efficacious remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The court held that Section 34 of SARFAESI bars civil court jurisdiction and Section 35 gives SARFAESI overriding effect over state legislation regarding exorbitant interest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Jun-2026

    Admission (Wp)

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

  4. 29-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 25-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/20749/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/20749/2026 Court Decision: The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable on three grounds: (1) a writ under Article 226 cannot be filed against a private Asset Reconstruction Company; (2) the petitioner's prayer improperly sought certiorari relief under the guise of mandamus; and (3) the SARFAESI Act provides an alternative efficacious remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The court held that Section 34 of SARFAESI bars civil court jurisdiction and Section 35 gives SARFAESI overriding effect over state legislation regarding exorbitant interest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case