STORIES SUPREME COURT & HIGH COURTS IBC IPR GST/VAT/CST CUSTOMS/EXCISE/SERVICE TAX Top Stories Supreme Court & High Courts IBC IPR GST/VAT/CST CUSTOMS/EXCISE/SERVICE TAX INCOME TAX OTHER TAXES COMPANY LAW/LL/MSME ARBITRATION SECURITIES LAW COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT RERA COMPETITION LAW MERGER/

TOP STORIES SUPREME COURT & HIGH COURTS IBC IPR GST/VAT/CST CUSTOMS/EXCISE/SERVICE TAX Top Stories Supreme Court & High Courts IBC IPR GST/VAT/CST CUSTOMS/EXCISE/SERVICE TAX INCOME TAX OTHER TAXES COMPANY LAW/LL/MSME ARBITRATION SECURITIES LAW COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT RERA COMPETITION LAW MERGER/ACQUISITION COMPLIANCE/REGULATORY BANKING/NBFC DEBT RECOVERY LAWS DIGESTS COLUMNS LAW FIRMS INTERVIEWS PMLA/FEMA Home/DEBT RECOVERY LAWS/Writ Petition Not Maintainable… Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Private ARC Enforcing Security Interest: Madras High Court Sandhra Suresh 3 June 2026 3:28 PM (5 mins read ) Share this On 2 June, the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a pre-sale auction notice issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and held that Article 226 jurisdiction does not extend to a private Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC) enforcing contractual rights, and that the borrower must approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). Also Read – Cheque Dishonour Notice Must Specify Amount Demanded, Else No Valid Notice In Eye Of Law: Kerala High Court Advertisement The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan held that JM Financial ARC acted as a private entity enforcing contractual and statutory security interests and did not perform any public function that could attract writ jurisdiction. It observed: “The first respondent, in initiating proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, is merely enforcing a private contractual right and security interest created by the borrower. It is not discharging any public function or sovereign duty. Therefore, a writ petition against a private ARC enforcing a private debt is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” Also Read – Technical Glitch Could Have Misled Bidder; Kerala High Court Directs Central Bank To Refund Auction Deposit The petitioner, R. Kumar, an ex-serviceman, availed a financial facility of Rs. 25 lakh and claimed that he repaid Rs. 38.02 lakh. He alleged that the financier charged exorbitant interest and filed proceedings before the City Civil Court, Chennai, under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. That proceeding remained pending before mediation. During the pendency of those proceedings, JM Financial ARC issued a pre-sale auction notice dated 17 March 2026 under the SARFAESI Act to recover the alleged dues. Kumar then moved the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to quash the notice and restrain further coercive action. Also Read – Supreme Court Says Criminal Prosecution After DRT-Recorded Loan Settlement Was Abuse of Process Advertisement Kumar argued that the auction process operated oppressively and violated fair play principles, especially since the civil court already examined the issue of exorbitant interest. He urged the Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to protect his rights until the civil proceedings concluded. The Bench identified three core issues, the first being maintainability of a writ petition against a private ARC. It held that JM Financial ARC qualifies as a private corporate entity and does not fall within the definition of “State” under Article 12. Also Read – Supreme Court Issues Notice On Challenge To HC Order Quashing FIR Against HDFC Bank CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan It further held that enforcement of security interest under SARFAESI constitutes a private contractual enforcement mechanism and not a public duty. It relied on Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir (2022) and reiterated that writ jurisdiction does not apply against private ARCs acting under SARFAESI. The Bench also examined the nature of reliefs sought by the petitioner and noted that he sought both mandamus and certiorari-type reliefs against a private recovery action. It clarified that mandamus enforces a public duty while certiorari lies in supervisory jurisdiction over judicial or quasi-judicial actions, and held that the prayers reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of writ jurisdiction. The Bench further held that SARFAESI operates as a self-contained code and Section 17 provides an effective statutory remedy before the DRT against measures under Section 13(4). Relying on PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank (2024), it reiterated that courts should not exercise writ jurisdiction when an efficacious alternative remedy exists. It observed: “In the present case, the petitioner’s grievance regarding the calculation of dues and the allegation of exorbitant interest are pure questions of fact that require examination of accounts. The Debts Recovery Tribunal is fully equipped to undertake this fact finding exercise. It is for the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy, if so advised.” The Court further held that pendency of proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Exorbitant Interest Act does not restrain SARFAESI enforcement. It also noted that Section 34 bars civil court jurisdiction in matters falling within the DRT framework, and Section 35 gives SARFAESI overriding effect over inconsistent state legislation. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable and left it open to Kumar to approach the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The Bench did not impose costs and closed all connected interim applications. For Appellants: Advocate R Sankarasubbu Tags Madras HCWrit PetitionSARFAESI ActJM Financial ARCMaintainability of Writ Case Title : R.Kumar Vs The Authorised Officer JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Case Number : WP No.20749 of 2026 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(MAD) 135 To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE Next Story Cheque Dishonour Notice Must Specify Amount Demanded, Else No Valid Notice In Eye Of Law: Kerala High Court Shilpa Soman 3 June 2026 11:59 AM (3 mins read ) Share this The Kerala High Court has held that a statutory demand notice issued in a cheque dishonour case must specifically mention the amount demanded, failing which there would be no legal notice in the eye of law. “Only when the notice is specific about the amount, it is possible for the recipient of the notice to pay the amount which was specifically asked for to avoid penal consequences,” the Court observed. Advertisement Justice A Badharudeen made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed against the acquittal of an accused in a case arising from the dishonour of a cheque for ₹95,000. The appeal challenged a judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perambra, which had acquitted the accused after finding that the notice demanding payment of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque did not specifically state the amount. The complainant argued that the omission was inconsequential because there was only one transaction between the parties and the notice mentioned the dishonoured cheque, making it possible to infer the amount demanded. Rejecting the contention, the Court observed that an offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act is complete only upon fulfilment of all the requirements prescribed by law, including issuance of a demand notice and failure to pay the amount demanded within the stipulated period. Advertisement Explaining the requirement of a specific demand, the Court observed: “In proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act, it has been specifically stated that “makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money”. This phraseology would indicate that the notice should specifically state the amount to be paid consequential to the dishonour of the cheque. Only when the notice is specific about the amount, it is possible for the recipient of the notice to pay the amount which was specifically asked for to avoid penal consequences.” The Court further observed, “Once the notice failed to mention the actual/specific amount due, the possibility to repay the actual/specific amount which failed to be asked for would become impossible. Be it so, it could only be held that in the absence of specific mentioning of the amount in the demand notice there is no demand for payment of the actual/specific amount covered by the cheque in the eye of law.” Holding that such a notice is incomplete, the court observed, “If so, without much ado, it has to be held that when the complainant fails to mention the amount in the demand notice contemplated under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act, the notice is incomplete and therefore, the recipient of the notice could not pay the amount to avoid the penal consequences. In such circumstances, there is no legal notice in the eye of law.” Finding the trial court’s view justified, the High Court held that the acquittal did not require interference and dismissed the appeal. For Appellant: Advocate E Narayanan For Respondents: Advocate Alex M Thombra, Sr.Public Prosecutor Tags Kerala High CourtJustice A BadharudeenSection 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act Case Title : Rajesh K v. Asokan P.K Case Number : Crl.A No. 212 of 2013 CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 85 To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE Similar Posts Cheque Dishonour Notice Must Specify Amount Demanded, Else No Valid Notice In Eye Of Law: Kerala High Court The Kerala High Court has held that a statutory demand notice issued in a cheque dishonour case must specifically mention the amount demanded, failing which there would be no legal notice in the eye of law. “Only when the notice is specific about the amount, it is possible for the recipient of the notice to pay the amount which was specifically… Technical Glitch Could Have Misled Bidder; Kerala High Court Directs Central Bank To Refund Auction Deposit The Kerala High Court has upheld a direction requiring the Central Bank of India to refund money deposited by an auction participant after finding that an admitted technical glitch could have led her to believe that her bid had not been accepted. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. passed the order while partly… Supreme Court Says Criminal Prosecution After DRT-Recorded Loan Settlement Was Abuse of Process The Supreme Court on Friday quashed criminal proceedings against a borrower accused of obtaining enhanced credit facilities using forged audit reports, holding that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process after the loan account had been settled under a compromise approved by the bank, implemented by the parties and… Supreme Court Issues Notice On Challenge To HC Order Quashing FIR Against HDFC Bank CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in a challenge to the Bombay High Court’s May 5, 2026, judgment quashing FIR against HDFC Bank Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer Sashidhar Jagdishan. The FIRs stemmed from allegations that Jagdishan colluded with certain former trustees of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust and… Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench Whether IBC Moratorium Applies To Entire Cheque Bounce Proceedings Or Only Compensatory Aspect The Supreme Court on Wednesday referred to a larger bench the question of whether insolvency moratorium protections under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code apply to cheque dishonor prosecutions, while expressing the view that the criminal component of such proceedings should not be halted during personal insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings. A… Non-Borrower Tenants Need Not Make Pre-Deposit Before Filing Appeal Before DRAT: Karnataka High Court The Karnataka High Court has held that a tenant or other non-borrower cannot be compelled to make a pre-deposit to maintain an appeal against a Debt Recovery Tribunal order under the SARFAESI Act. It held that the requirement applies only to borrowers. A Division Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice K Manmadha Rao said the statute draws a… Office-Bearers Can Face NI Act Prosecution If Complaint Shows Their Role In Transaction: Supreme Court The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that criminal liability for cheque dishonour cannot be fastened on a person merely because they hold an office in a society, while making it clear that proceedings cannot be quashed at the threshold where the complaint discloses sufficient factual material linking them to the underlying transaction. A Bench of… Delhi High Court Directs SpiceJet To Disclose Assets In Sunbird France Plea To Enforce ₹84 Crore Foreign Decree The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed SpiceJet Ltd to file an affidavit disclosing its assets within three weeks in proceedings initiated by France-based aircraft lessor Sunbird France 02 SAS. Sunbird is seeking enforcement of a foreign decree of around ₹84 crore passed by the England & Wales Commercial Court against the airline. Justice… Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes Cheque Bounce Case Against Society Signatory, Directs Society Impleadment The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an authorised signatory of a society cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of a cheque issued from the society’s account unless the society itself is arraigned as an accused. Justice Sandeep Sharma quashed a complaint filed by Kuldeep Singh against… Calcutta High Court Denies Relief To SARFAESI Auctions Buyer After DRT Bars SBI From Issuing Sale Certificate The Calcutta High Court has held that State Bank of India cannot be faulted for withholding a sale certificate to a successful auction purchaser when it is restrained from doing so by a subsisting Debts Recovery Tribunal order. The Court refused to direct the bank to either complete the sale or refund ₹11.41 crore paid by the purchaser. Justice… Calcutta High Court Refuses Wife Relief Against Bank’s SARFAESI Action Despite DV Act Protection Order The Calcutta High Court has refused to interfere with HDFC Bank’s SARFAESI action against a property despite a wife having secured a domestic violence protection Act order over the same premises. The Court noted that her challenge to the bank’s possession notice is already pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. A Division Bench of Chief… About Us Contact Us Advertise with us Careers Privacy Policy Terms & Conditions Top Stories INCOME TAX MSME Know the Law Compliance Other Taxes IBC PMLA & FEMA Competition Law Law Firms ARBITRATION Supreme Court & High Courts IPR Company Law Regulatory Interviews Columns Commerical Court Act GST / VAT / CST LLP Securities Law Debt Recovery Laws Banking/NBFC Custom & Excise & Service Tax RERA Compliance Digests Merger and Acquisition 2026 © All Rights Reserved @LiveLaw Media Pvt Ltd Powered By – Blink CMS We use cookies for analytics, advertising and to improve our site. You agree to our use of cookies by continuing to use our site. To know more, see our Cookie Policy and Cookie Settings.Ok

https://www.livelawbiz.com/recovery-laws/madras-hc-writ-petition-not-maintainable-against-private-asset-reconstruction-company-enforcing-security-interest-under-sarfaesi-act-536694