W.P.No.14815 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.07.2026 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P.No.14815 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.16723, 16724 and 16725 of 2025 J.Pandiyammal W/o.Jeyamuthu, Door No.2/69, Kasipillampalayam, Kampulipatti Village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District. Petitioner Vs 1.The Reserve Bank of India No.6, Rajaji Road Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The Authorized Officer/ Branch Manager, Edelweiss Housing Finance Limited, Edelweiss House, C.S.T. Road, Kalina, Mumbai-400 098. Respondents ______________ Page 1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14815 of 2025 PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned possession notice issued by the 2nd respondent dated 17.11.2021 and quash the same on the ground that the same is arbitrary, illegal. For Petitioner: No Appearance ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) None appears for the petitioner when the matter is called out. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the possession notice dated 17.11.2021 issued by the second respondent.

3. At the threshold, it is pertinent to point out the maintainability of the present writ petition against the second respondent, which is a private Bank and not a “State” or an “instrumentality of the State” as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. ______________ Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14815 of 2025 4. It is a well-settled law that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can only be issued against a State, its instrumentalities, or a private body discharging a public function or statutory public duty. The second 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 Bank enforcing a private debt is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said view of this Court is supported by a decision of the Supreme Court in Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir1, wherein it is held as under: “18. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that a writ petition against the private financial institution — ARC — the appellant herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proposed action/actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act can be said to be not maintainable.

In the present case, the ARC proposed to take action/actions under the SARFAESI Act to recover the borrowed amount as a secured creditor. The ARC as such cannot be said to be performing public functions which are normally expected to be performed by the 1 (2022) 5 SCC 345 ______________ Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14815 of 2025 State authorities. During the course of a commercial transaction and under the contract, the bank/ARC lent the money to the borrowers herein and therefore the said activity of the bank/ARC cannot be said to be as performing a public function which is normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. If proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any proposed action is to be taken and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, borrower has to avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would lie and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable. ...” [emphasis supplied] 5. Assuming for the sake of argument that the writ petition is maintainable, the petitioner is squarely met with the bar of an alternative efficacious remedy. As per Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, any person aggrieved by the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act must challenge the same before the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal.

6. The Supreme Court in an epoch-making judgment in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank2, reiterated that High Courts should decline writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when statutory 2 (2024) 6 SCC 579 ______________ Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14815 of 2025 remedies are available. The Court ruled that a writ petition cannot be entertained if the governing statute already provides a specific grievance redressal mechanism. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are reproduced hereunder: “37. It could thus clearly be seen that the Court has carved out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy. Some of them are thus: (i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question; (ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; (iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. 38. It has however been clarified that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance.” [emphasis supplied] ______________ Page 5 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14815 of 2025 7. In light of the above, we are of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable and, therefore, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 13.07.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr To: The Reserve Bank of India No.6, Rajaji Road Fort St. George, Chennai. ______________ Page 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14815 of 2025 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN, J. bbr W.P.No.14815 of 2025 13.07.2026 ______________ Page 7 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.14815 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.07.2026 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P.No.14815 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.16723, 16724 and 16725 of 2025 J.Pandiyammal W/o.Jeyamuthu, Door No.2/69, Kasipillampalayam, Kampulipatti Village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District. Petitioner Vs 1.The Reserve Bank of India No.6, Rajaji Road Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The Authorized Officer/ Branch Manager, Edelweiss Housing Finance Limited, Edelweiss House, C.S.T. Road, Kalina, Mumbai-400 098. Respondents ______________ Page 1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14815 of 2025 PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned possession notice issued by the 2nd respondent dated 17.11.2021 and quash the same on the ground that the same is arbitrary, illegal. For Petitioner: No Appearance ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) None appears for the petitioner when the matter is called out. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the possession notice dated 17.11.2021 issued by the second respondent.

3. At the threshold, it is pertinent to point out the maintainability of the present writ petition against the second respondent, which is a private Bank and not a “State” or an “instrumentality of the State” as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. ______________ Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14815 of 2025 4. It is a well-settled law that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can only be issued against a State, its instrumentalities, or a private body discharging a public function or statutory public duty. The second 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 Bank enforcing a private debt is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said view of this Court is supported by a decision of the Supreme Court in Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir1, wherein it is held as under: “18. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that a writ petition against the private financial institution — ARC — the appellant herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proposed action/actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act can be said to be not maintainable.

In the present case, the ARC proposed to take action/actions under the SARFAESI Act to recover the borrowed amount as a secured creditor. The ARC as such cannot be said to be performing public functions which are normally expected to be performed by the 1 (2022) 5 SCC 345 ______________ Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14815 of 2025 State authorities. During the course of a commercial transaction and under the contract, the bank/ARC lent the money to the borrowers herein and therefore the said activity of the bank/ARC cannot be said to be as performing a public function which is normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. If proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any proposed action is to be taken and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, borrower has to avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would lie and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable. ...” [emphasis supplied] 5. Assuming for the sake of argument that the writ petition is maintainable, the petitioner is squarely met with the bar of an alternative efficacious remedy. As per Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, any person aggrieved by the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act must challenge the same before the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal.

6. The Supreme Court in an epoch-making judgment in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank2, reiterated that High Courts should decline writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when statutory 2 (2024) 6 SCC 579 ______________ Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14815 of 2025 remedies are available. The Court ruled that a writ petition cannot be entertained if the governing statute already provides a specific grievance redressal mechanism. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are reproduced hereunder: “37. It could thus clearly be seen that the Court has carved out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy. Some of them are thus: (i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question; (ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; (iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. 38. It has however been clarified that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance.” [emphasis supplied] ______________ Page 5 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14815 of 2025 7. In light of the above, we are of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable and, therefore, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 13.07.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr To: The Reserve Bank of India No.6, Rajaji Road Fort St. George, Chennai. ______________ Page 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14815 of 2025 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN, J. bbr W.P.No.14815 of 2025 13.07.2026 ______________ Page 7 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis