G.Muralidharan, v. The Authorized Officer,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.12.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.27694, 27695 and 27696 of 2025 G.Muralidharan ... Petitioner Vs.
The Authorized Officer, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, Thuckalay Branch No.20/32-A, Main Road, Benic Mansion, Thuckalay, Kanniyakumari District.
... Respondent PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanniyakumari District, at Nagercoil, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2737 of 2025 dated 31.10.2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Cibichakraborthy For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Ajay Parthiban 1/4
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.) This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2737 of 2025 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanniyakumari District, dated 31.10.2025. We find the Authorized Officer of the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank has sought for enforcement of right under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, to take over the possession of the writ petitioner's premises with the help of the Advocate Commissioner and Police Assistance.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that the petitioner has availed a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- in the year 2017. The petitioner has so far paid more than a sum of Rs.26,00,000/-, but with their erroneous calculation, they are still claiming a sum of Rs.9,90,000/- and for that purpose, the property attempted to take possession through the impugned order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanniyakumari.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that the very same issue regarding the amount recoverable is sub judice and 2/4
pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in S.C.No.843 of 2025. While so, the petitioner ought to have approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal for any remedy whatsoever, in spite of approaching the High Court by filing the writ petition, which is not maintainable. 4.This Court, after perusing the statement of account and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Bank, is of the view that the remedy for the petitioner lies before the DRT in SC No.843 of 2024 is pending. However, since the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanniyakumari has passed an order for taking possession under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, we restrain the Bank Authorities from proceeding with that order till the disposal of the S.C.No.843 of 2025. 5.With this observation, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.] 11.12.2025 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes Ns 3/4
DR.
G. JAYACHANDRAN , J.
AND K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
Ns and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.27694, 27695 and 27696 of 2025 11.12.2025 4/4