WP/42922/2026 of NARMATA PRAKASH SADHWANI Vs M/S.J.M.FINANCIAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIM on 28 October 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by G.Arul Murugan,J.) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to enforce the order dated 16.9.2026 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in Crl.M.P.No.1280 0f 2026 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act till the disposal of S.A.No.496 of 2025 pending on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, when already an appeal has been filed as against the Sarfaesi proceedings and is pending, the respondents ought not to have initiated separate proceeding under Section 14 of the Act and obtained an order and, in such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking not to enforce the order dated 16.9.2026.

3. We have considered the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

4. At the outset, the writ petition filed seeking a negative prayer not to enforce the order passed under Section 14 of the Act is per se not maintainable. If at the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed under Section 14 of the Act, the remedy open to the petitioner is to file an appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal. Further, we find that the respondents in this writ petition are private entities.

5. 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 respondents, in initiating proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, are 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 Hon’ble 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 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 1 (2022) 5 SCC 345

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]

6. In view of the above, the writ petition is not maintainable and, accordingly, the same is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to workout the remedy in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

28.10.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,

J.

bbr W.P.No.42922 of 2026

28.10.2026