Aadhikesavan R vs Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited — WP(MD)/14895/2026
Case under Others Section Others. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 08th June 2026.
CNR: HCMD010548642026
Filing Number
WP(MD)/33711/2026
Filing Date
15-Apr-2026
Registration No
WP(MD)/14895/2026
Registration Date
03-Jun-2026
Judge
Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar , Honourable Mr.Justice M.jothiraman
Coram
Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar , Honourable Mr.Justice M.jothiraman
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
Banking ( 15 )
Sub-Category
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, ( 33 )
Judicial Branch
Writ Section
Decision Date
08-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 10-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Aadhikesavan R
Adv. V.SHANKAR, ,C.ALAGU BHAVANI
Respondent(s)
-
1.Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited
-
2.The Authorised Officer
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-Jun-2026
Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish KUMAR,Honourable Mr.Justice M.jothiramanView PDF
Case Summary: WP(MD)/14895/2026 The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) dismissed Aadhikesavan R's writ petition challenging Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited's SARFAESI e-auction sale notice dated 19.12.2025. The petitioner argued one scheduled property was agricultural land, placing it outside SARFAESI Act's scope. The court held that challenges to SARFAESI proceedings must be raised before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), not the High Court, and the agricultural property contention should be decided by the DRT on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-Jun-2026
For Maintainability
Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar , Honourable Mr.Justice M.jothiraman
-
15-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP(MD)/14895/2026
Case Summary: WP(MD)/14895/2026 The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) dismissed Aadhikesavan R's writ petition challenging Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited's SARFAESI e-auction sale notice dated 19.12.2025. The petitioner argued one scheduled property was agricultural land, placing it outside SARFAESI Act's scope. The court held that challenges to SARFAESI proceedings must be raised before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), not the High Court, and the agricultural property contention should be decided by the DRT on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts