VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

M.Rajamanickam v. State Bank of India

DISMISSED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
28 July 2026
Bench
The Chief Justice, G.Arul Murugan
Case no.
WP 16743/2024

Follow Madras High CourtFollow The Chief JusticeFollow G.Arul Murugan

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.07.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN and WMP Nos.9050, 14390, 18394, 24530 and 24531 of 2024 M.Rajamanickam .. Petitioner in all WPs. -vs-

¶1State Bank of India Rep. By its General Manager, Red Cross Building, 32, Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶2Shri.Amir Hamsa Ali Abbas Rawther Liquidator, appointed under IBC,2016 Room No.94, SBIOA Unity Enclave Mambakkam PO, Chennai 600 127. .. Respondents 1 and 2 in all WPs.

¶3The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District. .. 3rd Respondent in WP.No.8101/2024 Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of (i) WP.No.8101/2024 - Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from conducting further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act 2002 as amended pursuant to the order of the 3rd respondent in Crl.M.P.No.7777 of 2021 dated 05.04.2022 and 02.06.2023 made in terms of Sec.14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, as amended along with the auction notice issued by the 1st respondent dated 26.02.2024 along with the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai, dated 09.02.2024 in IBC No.IA(IBC)/530(CHE)2023 IN CP/243/2021; (ii) WP No.13248/2024 – Writ of Certiorari to call for records of the proceedings of the 1st respondent in SBI/SAMB/CLOII/2024-25/24 dated 12.04.2024 and quash the same as the said action is patently illegal and contrary to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, as amended and IBC, 2016 and restrain the respondents from taking action in terms of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as amended qua the properties of the corporate debtor M/s.Hotel Milestonnez India Pvt. Ltd.; (iii) WP No.16743/2024 - Writ of Certiorari to call for records of the proceedings of the respondents in SBI/SAMB/CLOII/2024-25/153 dated 14.06.2024 issued under Rule 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules announcing the sale of petition mentioned properties by public e-auctions to be held on

17.07.2024 as illegal and contrary to the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 as amended and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and quash the same; and (iv) WP No.22514/2024 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records of the proceedings of the 1st respondent in SBI/SAMB/CLOII/2024-25/153 dated 14.06.2024 issued under Rule 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules whereby the petitoin mentioned properties were auctioned on 17.07.2024 and quash the same and forbear the respondents from issuing a sale certificate of the petition mentioned property in pursuance of the above mentioned auction sale. For Petitioner in all WPs. : No appearance For Respondents in all WPs.

: Mr.B.Raghavulu Naidu for R-1 : Mr.Jayanthi K.Shah M/s.Shalma I. And Nithya S. for R-2 : R-3 in WP.8101/2024 - Court * * * COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) None appears for the petitioner.

¶2In all these writ petitions, the petitioner, who is the promoter of M/s.Milestonnez Private India Limited, challenges the e-auction notices issued in respect of the properties in question. The said entity obtained two loans from the 1st respondent and on account of non-repayment of dues, the accounts of the said entity were classified as NPA and thereafter, Sarfaesi proceedings were initiated. Challenging the notices issued under the SARFAESI Act, the present writ petitions came to be filed one after the other. All the petitions are of the year 2024.

¶3Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the point raised in all these writ petitions is rendered infructuous, as the properties in question have already been sold on 17.07.2024. Moreover, the writ filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.16239 of 2023 in respect of same subject property, was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.06.2026. In view of the aforesaid, nothing survives for adjudication in these petitions. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed as having rendered infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim applications stand closed. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)

28.07.2026 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No sra To

¶1The General Manager,, State Bank of India Red Cross Building, 32, Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶2The Liquidator appointed under IBC,2016 Room No.94, SBIOA Unity Enclave Mambakkam PO, Chennai 600 127.

¶3The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District. THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

(sra) WP Nos.8101, 13248, 16743 and 22514 of 2024

28.07.2026

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.