104+202 CM IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ARUN KUMAR (RANA) AND ORS YES BANK LIMITED AND ORS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present:- Mr. Vivek Sethi, for the petitioner Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. **** SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral) CM-10116-CWP The instant application with Section 151 of C impleading Assets Care and Reconstructions Enterprises Limited as respondent No.5 in the main case Assets Care and Reconstructions Enterprises Limited by the Bank. 2. Application stands disposed of. 3. The impleaded as respondent No.5. 4. Amended memo of parties on record. MAIN CASE Mr. Gurmandeep Singh Sullar, Advocate, has put in appearance CM-10116-2025 in/and CWP-2517 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM CWP ARUN KUMAR (RANA) AND ORS Versus YES BANK LIMITED AND ORS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner (s). Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. **** SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral) CWP-2025 The instant application preferred with Section 151 of C.P.C. and Article 226 of Constitution impleading Assets Care and Reconstructions Enterprises Limited as respondent No.5 in the main case as the loan account has been assigned to Assets Care and Reconstructions Enterprises Limited by the Bank. Application stands disposed of. The Assets Care and Reconstructions Enterprises Limited is impleaded as respondent No.5. Amended memo of parties appended with application is MAIN CASE Mr. Gurmandeep Singh Sullar, Advocate, has put in appearance 2517-2023 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-10116-2025 in/and CWP-2517-2023 Date of Decision: 11.09.2025 ...Petitioners ...Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY for respondents No.1 and 2. preferred under Order 1 Rule 10 read .P.C. and Article 226 of Constitution of India is for impleading Assets Care and Reconstructions Enterprises Limited as as the loan account has been assigned to Assets Care and Reconstructions Enterprises Limited by the Bank. Assets Care and Reconstructions Enterprises Limited is appended with application is taken Mr. Gurmandeep Singh Sullar, Advocate, has put in appearance KANIKA 2025.09.15 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 104+202 CM on behalf of taken on record. 2. The petitioners, who are borrowers, have approached this Court challenging order dated District Magistrate, Chandigarh, Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act), and letter dated 06.01.2023 (Annexure P Tehsildar (Revenue) various grounds. 3. 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 re Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). 4. From the averments in the petition, it does not appear that the petitioners have availed the statutory alternative rem DRT and/or DRAT. 5. 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, (202 Educational Society versus UCO Bank and others, 2024 (6)SCC 579 (Paras 22 to 41), Article 226 of Constitution. 6. The petitioners are relegated to avail the app CM-10116-2025 in/and CWP-2517 respondent No.5 and filed his memo of appearance, which is taken on record. The petitioners, who are borrowers, have approached this Court challenging order dated 21.12.2022 passed by Deputy Commissioner District Magistrate, Chandigarh, under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act), and letter dated 06.01.2023 (Annexure P Tehsildar (Revenue)-cum-Assistant Collector Grade 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). From the averments in the petition, it does not appear that the petitioners have availed the statutory alternative rem DRT and/or 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 (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 app 2517-2023 -2- respondent No.5 and filed his memo of appearance, which is The petitioners, who are borrowers, have approached this Court 21.12.2022 passed by Deputy Commissioner-cum- under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act), and letter dated 06.01.2023 (Annexure P-7) issued by Assistant Collector Grade-1, U.T. Chandigarh, on 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 covery mechanism but also remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate From the averments in the petition, it does not appear that the petitioners have 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 (Para 17, 27) ; Phoenix ARC Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya 2) 5 SCC 345 (Paras 10, 21) ;PHR Invent Educational Society versus UCO Bank and others, 2024 (6)SCC 579 this Court refrains from exercise of jurisdiction under The petitioners are relegated to avail the appropriate statutory remedy KANIKA 2025.09.15 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 104+202 CM under the 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 30 days fromtoday along with copy of this order, the same shall be dismissed on limitation alone. 7. 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 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 petitioners having approache Court having passed the present order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty without commenting on merits, without cost. 11.09.2025 Kanika CM-10116-2025 in/and CWP-2517 under the 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 30 days fromtoday 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 the s 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 question of interim 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 petitioners having approache 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 2517-2023 -3- under the 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 30 days fromtoday along with copy of this order, the considered and decided on its own merits, without being Interim relief, if granted, in the present petition, shall continue till DRT takes fresh decision on the question of interim relief, provided the s 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 the question of interim 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 petitioners having approached this Court or this 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