105+222 CWP IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA M/S KUBER ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present:- Mr. Alok Jagga, Advocate (Arguing counsel) Mr. H.S. Jagdev, for the petitioner Mr. J.S. Bagga, Advocate Ms. Anshul Rana, Advocate for respondent **** SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral) 1. The Court challenging notice 30.01.2023, 08.02.2023, 06.02.2023 (Annexure P P-43, P-44 respectively) issued u/s 13 Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act), on va 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 recover CWP-5134-2023 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-5134 Date of Decision: M/S KUBER ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS Versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. Alok Jagga, Advocate (Arguing counsel) Mr. H.S. Jagdev, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Bagga, Advocate (Arguing counsel) Ms. Anshul Rana, Advocate for respondent **** SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners, who are borrowers Court challenging notices dated 02.04.2021, 23.08.2022, 30.01.2023, 08.02.2023, 06.02.2023 (Annexure P 44 respectively) issued u/s 13 Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 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 recover -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 5134-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.09.2025 M/S KUBER ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS ...Petitioners RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. Alok Jagga, Advocate (Arguing counsel) (Arguing counsel) Ms. Anshul Rana, Advocate for respondent-Bank. petitioners, who are borrowers, have approached this 02.04.2021, 23.08.2022, 23.11.2022, 30.01.2023, 08.02.2023, 06.02.2023 (Annexure P-14, P-34, P-39, P-41, 44 respectively) issued u/s 13 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest rious 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 KANIKA 2025.09.15 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 105+222 CWP 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 petitioners have availed the statutory alternative remedy o approaching the DRT and thereafter, before DRAT. 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 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 statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter before DRAT. In case the petitioner 17 of SARFAESI Act within a period of 30 days from today along with copy of this order, th 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, 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 CWP-5134-2023 (O&M) 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 remedy o 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) ;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 statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter before DRAT. In case the petitioners prefers 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, 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 question of interim -2- remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts 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 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 statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter prefers an application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act within a period of 30 days from today along with e 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 Tribunal while deciding the question of interim KANIKA 2025.09.15 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 105+222 CWP 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 petiti approached this Court or this Court having passed the present order. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty without commenting on merits, without cost. 8. Pending application(s disposed of. 11.09.2025 Kanika CWP-5134-2023 (O&M) 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 petiti 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. Pending application(s), including CM Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No -3- 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 petitioners having 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. ), including CM-6979-2024 also stand (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