CWP-1127-2019 ( O&M ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA M/s Maxx Metals Pvt. Ltd. and others Indian Overseas Bank CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. challenging notice dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure P – Bank u/s 2. 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 Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and th (DRAT). 2019 ( O&M ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-3209-CWP-2019 in/and C M/s Maxx Metals Pvt. Ltd. and others Versus Indian Overseas Bank and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate (through video conferencing), For respondent No.1 Bank. Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate, and Ms. Ateevraj Sandhu, Advocate, for applicants in CM-3209-CWP No.4 and 5. **** SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral ) The petitioners, who are borrowers, have approached this Court challenging notice dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure P u/s 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, on various grounds. The Apex Court has consistently held that High Courts 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 Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2019 in/and CWP-1127-2019 ( O&M ) Date of decision : 15.09.2025 …….Petitioners ...….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY , Advocate, for the petitioners. r. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate (through video conferencing), Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate, and Ms. Ateevraj Sandhu, Advocate, CWP-2019/proposed respondents ( Oral ) The petitioners, who are borrowers, have approached this Court challenging notice dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure P-25) issued by the respondent 13 (4) of the 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 ereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal 2019 ( O&M ) .2025 …….Petitioners ...….Respondents The petitioners, who are borrowers, have approached this Court 25) issued by the respondent 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 ereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal NAROTAM DASS 2025.09.18 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-1127-2019 ( O&M ) 3. the petitioners have 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) SCC 579 (Paras 22 to 41) refrains from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. under SARFAESI Act before DRT a petitioners prefer an application 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 limi 6. 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 prescribed stipulated time, then this order shall not prejudice the mind of Tribunal while deciding the question of interim relief, if admissible to petitioners. We further make it clear that the interim relief strictly on merits of the matter, without being influenced by the fact of petitioners having approached this Court or this Court having passed the present order. 7. liberty, without commenting on merits, without cost. 2019 ( O&M ) From the averments made 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 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 petitioners are relegated to avail appropriate statutory remedy under SARFAESI Act before DRT and thereafter before DRAT. In case the petitioners prefer an application u/s 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 limi Interim relief granted in this 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 prescribed stipulated time, then this order shall not prejudice the mind of Tribunal while deciding the question of interim relief, if admissible to petitioners. We further make it clear that the interim relief strictly on merits of the matter, without being influenced by the fact of petitioners having approached this Court or this Court having passed the present order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dis liberty, without commenting on merits, without cost. -2- From the averments made in the petition, it does not appear that the petitioners have availed the statutory alternative remedy of approaching the nd 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 Societ Versus UCO Bank and others, 2024 (6) SCC 579 (Paras 22 to 41), this Court refrains from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners are relegated to avail appropriate statutory remedy nd thereafter before DRAT. In case the 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 granted in this 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 made clear that if petitioners approach 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 petitioners. We further make it clear that the Tribunal shall decide request for interim relief strictly on merits of the matter, without being influenced by the fact of petitioners having approached this Court or this Court having passed Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty, without commenting on merits, without cost. From the averments made in the petition, it does not appear that the petitioners have 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 petitioners are relegated to avail appropriate statutory remedy nd thereafter before DRAT. In case the 17 of SARFAESI Act within a period of 30 days from today along with copy of this order, the same shall be considered tation alone. Interim relief granted in this 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 made clear that if petitioners approach 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 Tribunal shall decide request for interim relief strictly on merits of the matter, without being influenced by the fact of petitioners having approached this Court or this Court having passed posed of with aforesaid NAROTAM DASS 2025.09.18 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-1127-2019 ( O&M ) 8. also stand disposed of. September 15, 2 narotam Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2019 ( O&M ) All the pending applications, including CM also stand disposed of. September 15, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -3- All the pending applications, including CM-3209-CWP-2019, ( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( SANJIV BERRY ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 2019, NAROTAM DASS 2025.09.18 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment