CWP-12956 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA M/s Satguru Foundation (Regd.) and another Canara Bank and another CORAM: Present: SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. adopted Financial Assets (for short SARFAESI Act) and further various disputed questions of fact are being raised. 2. Courts should refrain from interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI proceedings. The SARFAESI Act, 12956-2022 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of decision : M/s Satguru Foundation (Regd.) and another Versus Canara Bank and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate, (Through Video Conferencing) and Mr. Karan Gaba, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Rahish Pahwa, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Senior DAG, Punjab **** SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral ) The petitioners are assailing one of the recourses adopted u/s 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short SARFAESI Act) and further various disputed questions of fact are being raised. The Apex Court has consistently held that High Courts should refrain from interfering under Article 226 of the titution in SARFAESI proceedings. The SARFAESI Act, -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-12956-2022 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.09.2025 M/s Satguru Foundation (Regd.) and another …….Petitioners ...….Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate, (Through Video Conferencing) and Mr. Karan Gaba, Advocate, , Advocate, Salil Sabhlok, Senior DAG, Punjab. ( Oral ) s are assailing one of the recourses u/s 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act) and further various disputed questions The Apex Court has consistently held that High Courts should refrain from interfering under Article 226 of the titution in SARFAESI proceedings. The SARFAESI Act, 1- .2025 s ...….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE s are assailing one of the recourses u/s 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of , 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act) and further various disputed questions The Apex Court has consistently held that High Courts should refrain from interfering under Article 226 of the titution in SARFAESI proceedings. The SARFAESI Act, AJAY PRASHER 2025.09.29 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12956-2022 (O&M) -2- 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 petitioners have availed the statutory alternative remedy of approaching the DRT and/or 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 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 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 its own 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 petitioners approach DRT within 30 days, failing which, the interim relief shall lose its effect. It is made AJAY PRASHER 2025.09.29 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12956-2022 (O&M) -3- 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 petitioner, having 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. (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE (SANJIV BERRY) September 22, 2025 JUDGE Ajay Prasher Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No AJAY PRASHER 2025.09.29 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document