224 CWP-34297 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA BIKASH CHANDRA SAMANTA AND ANOTHER CANARA BANK AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present:- Mr. Mukul Goyal, for the petitioner Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advocate for respondent **** SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral) 1. The petitioners, who are borrowers, have approached this Court challengin u/s 13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act), and notice dated 24.06.2024 (Annexure P SARFAESI Act, 2. The Apex Court has con should refrain from interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI proceedings. The SARFAESI Act, 2002 is a complete code which not only provides for a detailed recovery mechanism but also remedies before the Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). 34297-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: BIKASH CHANDRA SAMANTA AND ANOTHER Versus CANARA BANK AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. Mukul Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advocate for respondent **** SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners, who are borrowers, have approached this Court challenging notice dated 25.01.2024 ) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act), and notice dated 24.06.2024 (Annexure P 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, 2002 is a complete code which not only provides for a detailed recovery mechanism but also remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-34297-2024 Date of Decision: 11.09.2025 BIKASH CHANDRA SAMANTA AND ANOTHER ...Petitioners ...Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advocate for respondent-Bank. The petitioners, who are borrowers, have approached this 25.01.2024 (Annexure P-1) issued ) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act), and notice dated 24.06.2024 (Annexure P-3) issued u/s 13 (4) of sistently held that High Courts should refrain from interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI proceedings. The SARFAESI Act, 2002 is a complete code which not only provides for a detailed recovery mechanism but also Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts KANIKA 2025.09.15 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 224 CWP-34297 3. From the averments in the petition, it does not appear that the petitioners have availed the statutory alternative remedy of approaching the DRT and thereafter, bef 4. In view of above and the ratio laid down by Apex Court in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) AIR SC 3413 (Para 17, 27) ; Phoenix ARC Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and others, (2022) 5 SCC 345 (Paras 10, 21) ; Invent Educational Society versus UCO Bank and others, 2024 (6)SCC 579 (Paras 22 to 41), jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution. 5. The petitioners are relegated to avail the appropriate statutory remedy un before DRAT. In case the petitioner 17 of SARFAESI Act within a period of 30 days from today along with copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided on merits, without being dismissed on limitation alone. 6. Interim relief, if granted, in the present petition, shall continue till DRT takes fresh decision on the question of interim relief, provided the petitioner relief shall lose its effect. It is made clear that if petitioners approach the Tribunal within the prescribed stipulated time, then this order shall not prejudice the mind of Tribunal while deciding the quest relief, if admissible to the petitioner Tribunal shall decide the request for interim relief strictly on merits of the matter, without being influenced by the fact of petitioner having 34297-2024 From the averments in the petition, it does not appear that the petitioners have 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 United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) AIR SC 3413 (Para 17, 27) ; Phoenix ARC Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and others, (2022) 5 SCC 345 (Paras 10, 21) ; Invent Educational Society versus UCO Bank and others, 2024 (6)SCC 579 (Paras 22 to 41), this Court refrains from exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution. The petitioners are relegated to avail the appropriate statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter before DRAT. In case the petitioners prefer an application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act within a period of 30 days from today along with copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided on merits, without being dismissed on limitation alone. Interim relief, if granted, in the present petition, shall continue till DRT takes fresh decision on the question of interim relief, provided the petitioners approach DRT within 30 days, failing which the interim relief shall lose its effect. It is made clear that if petitioners approach the Tribunal within the prescribed stipulated time, then this order shall not prejudice the mind of Tribunal while deciding the quest relief, if admissible to the petitioners. 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 -2- From the averments in the petition, it does not appear that the petitioners have availed the statutory alternative remedy of ore DRAT. In view of above and the ratio laid down by Apex Court in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) AIR SC 3413 (Para 17, 27) ; Phoenix ARC Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and others, (2022) 5 SCC 345 (Paras 10, 21) ;PHR Invent Educational Society versus UCO Bank and others, 2024 this Court refrains from exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution. The petitioners are relegated to avail the appropriate der the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter an application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act within a period of 30 days from today along with copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided on its own merits, without being dismissed on limitation alone. Interim relief, if granted, in the present petition, shall continue till DRT takes fresh decision on the question of interim relief, provided DRT within 30 days, failing which the interim relief shall lose its effect. It is made clear that if petitioners approach the Tribunal within the prescribed stipulated time, then this order shall not prejudice the mind of Tribunal while deciding the question of interim . 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 KANIKA 2025.09.15 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 224 CWP-34297 approached this Cour 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty without commenting on merits, without cost. 11.09.2025 Kanika 34297-2024 approached this Court or this Court having passed the present order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty without commenting on merits, without cost. Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No -3- t or this Court having passed the present order. 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 KANIKA 2025.09.15 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document