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.
CNR: HCMA011157912026
Filing Number
WP/84498/2026
Filing Date
25-05-2026
Registration No
WP/20749/2026
Registration Date
26-05-2026
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
02nd June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
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)
The Authorised officer
The Managing Director
Hearing History
Judge: Honourable The CHIEF JUSTICE , Honourable Mr.Justice G.ARUL MURUGAN
ADMISSION (WP)
ADMISSION (WP)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-05-2026 | ADMISSION (WP) |
| 01-06-2026 | ADMISSION (WP) |
Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts