CWP-28790-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Pushpa Devi Central Bank CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. challenging demand notice dated 2 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, notice dated 0 (4) of SARFAESI Act, on various grounds. 2. refrain from interfering unde proceedings. The SARFAESI Act is a complete code, which not only provides for a detailed recovery mechanism but also remedies before the Debts 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Pushpa Devi Versus Bank of India CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. Pardeep Panwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate, and Mr. Tejinder Singh, Advocate, for the respondent Bank. **** SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral ) The petitioner, who is borrower, has approached this Court challenging demand notice dated 27.08.2025 (Annexure P of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘SARFAESI Act’) and possession notice dated 09.09.2025 (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent (4) of SARFAESI Act, on various grounds. The Apex Court has consistently held that High Courts should refrain from interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI proceedings. The SARFAESI Act is a complete code, which not only provides for a detailed recovery mechanism but also remedies before the Debts -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28790-2025 Date of decision : 24.09.2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY , Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate, and Mr. Tejinder Singh, Advocate, ( Oral ) The petitioner, who is borrower, has approached this Court .2025 (Annexure P-1) issued u/s 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement 2002 (in short, ‘SARFAESI Act’) and possession ) issued by respondent – Bank u/s (4) of SARFAESI Act, on various grounds. The Apex Court has consistently held that High Courts should r Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI proceedings. The SARFAESI Act is a complete code, which not only provides for a detailed recovery mechanism but also remedies before the Debts 2025 .2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondent The petitioner, who is borrower, has approached this Court 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement 2002 (in short, ‘SARFAESI Act’) and possession u/s 13 The Apex Court has consistently held that High Courts should r Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI proceedings. The SARFAESI Act is a complete code, which not only provides for a detailed recovery mechanism but also remedies before the Debts NAROTAM DASS 2025.09.25 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-28790-2025 Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate Tr (DRAT). 3. the petitioner has availed the statutory alternative remedy of approaching the DRT and thereafter, before DRAT. 4 Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) AIR SC 3413 (Paras 17, 27); Phoenix ARC Private Limited Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and others, (2022) 5 SCC 345 (Paras 10, 21); Versus UCO Bank and others, 2024 (6) refrains from exercis 5. remedy under SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter before DRAT. case the petitioner prefers an application u/s 17 of SARFAESI Act within a period of 30 days from today along with copy of this order, same shall be considered and decided on its own merits, without being dismissed on limitation alone. 5.1 within prescribed stipulated time, then this order shall not prejudice the mind of Tribunal while deciding the question of interim relief, if admissible to the petitioner. We further make it clear that the Tri for interim relief strictly on merits of the matter, without being influenced by the fact of petitioner having approached this Court or this Court having passed the present order. 2025 Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate Tr From the averments made in the petition, it does not appear that the petitioner has availed the statutory alternative remedy of approaching the DRT and thereafter, before DRAT. In view of above and the ratio laid down by Apex Court in Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) AIR SC 3413 (Paras 17, 27); Phoenix ARC Private Limited Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and others, (2022) 5 SCC 345 (Paras 10, 21); and Versus UCO Bank and others, 2024 (6) SCC 579 (Paras 22 to 41) refrains from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is relegated to avail the appropriate statutory remedy under SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter before DRAT. e the petitioner prefers an application u/s 17 of SARFAESI Act within a period of 30 days from today along with copy of this order, same shall be considered and decided on its own merits, without being dismissed on limitation alone. It is made clear that that if petitioner approaches the Tribunal within prescribed stipulated time, then this order shall not prejudice the mind of Tribunal while deciding the question of interim relief, if admissible to the petitioner. We further make it clear that the Tri for interim relief strictly on merits of the matter, without being influenced by the fact of petitioner having approached this Court or this Court having passed the present order. -2- Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal From the averments made in the petition, it does not appear that the petitioner has availed the statutory alternative remedy of approaching the In view of above and the ratio laid down by Apex Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) AIR SC 3413 (Paras 17, 27); Phoenix ARC Private Limited Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and others, and PHR Invent Educational Society SCC 579 (Paras 22 to 41), this Court jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is relegated to avail the appropriate statutory remedy under SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter before DRAT. e the petitioner prefers an application u/s 17 of SARFAESI Act within a period of 30 days from today along with copy of this order, same shall be considered and decided on its own merits, without being dismissed on hat that if petitioner approaches the Tribunal within prescribed stipulated time, then this order shall not prejudice the mind of Tribunal while deciding the question of interim relief, if admissible to the petitioner. We further make it clear that the Tribunal shall decide the request for interim relief strictly on merits of the matter, without being influenced by the fact of petitioner having approached this Court or this Court having passed ibunal From the averments made in the petition, it does not appear that the petitioner has availed the statutory alternative remedy of approaching the United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) AIR SC 3413 (Paras 17, 27); Phoenix ARC Private Limited Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and others, PHR Invent Educational Society , this Court The petitioner is relegated to avail the appropriate statutory remedy under SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter before DRAT. In e the petitioner prefers an application u/s 17 of SARFAESI Act within a period of 30 days from today along with copy of this order, same shall be considered and decided on its own merits, without being dismissed on hat that if petitioner approaches the Tribunal within prescribed stipulated time, then this order shall not prejudice the mind of Tribunal while deciding the question of interim relief, if admissible to the bunal shall decide the request for interim relief strictly on merits of the matter, without being influenced by the fact of petitioner having approached this Court or this Court having passed NAROTAM DASS 2025.09.25 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-28790-2025 6. liberty, without commenting on merits, without cost. September 24 narotam Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2025 Accordingly, the writ petition stands dis liberty, without commenting on merits, without cost. September 24, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -3- Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty, without commenting on merits, without cost. ( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( SANJIV BERRY ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No posed of with aforesaid NAROTAM DASS 2025.09.25 18:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment