CWP-31692-2025 1 123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-31692-2025 Date of decision: 28.10.2025 DEEPAK KUMAR BHAGAT ....Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LUDHIANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY ***** Present: Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. ***** SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner, who is borrower, has approached this Court challenging one of the recourses adopted by the respondent-Bank u/s 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act). 1.1 The ground shown by the petitioner of challenging the said recourse adopted by the respondent-Bank is that mandatory provision of Section 13(3A) of SARFAESI Act has not been complied with, to the extent that the respondent- Bank has not communicated within the prescribed period of fifteen (15) days to the petitioner, the decision taken on reply to notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act. 2. 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). 3. From the averments in the petition, it does not appear that the MOHIT GOYAL 2025.10.28 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-31692-2025 2 petitioner has availed the statutory alternative remedy of approaching the DRT and thereafter, before DRAT. 4. In view of the above and the view of 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 (6)SCC 579 (Paras 22 to 41), this Court refrains from exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution. 5. The petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy and is therefore relegated to avail the appropriate statutory remedy under SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter before DRAT. In case the petitioner prefers an application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act within a period of 03 (three) 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. 5.1 We hope and expect that if the application u/s 17 of SARFAESI Act is filed as per above, the same shall be taken up urgently by the jurisdictional DRT. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty without commenting on merits, without cost. (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE (SANJIV BERRY) 28.10.2025 JUDGE mohit goyal Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No MOHIT GOYAL 2025.10.28 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document