CWP-7801-2025 128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA THE DISTRICT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR Present: Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate for SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Present petition has been preferred see authorities in terms of section 14 of the Securiti Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Interest Act, 2002. 2. The relief herein is required to be taken up before the concerned in terms of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act law laid down by the Supreme Court in and others vs. Naveen 18, and CELIR LLP vs. Bafna Motors Private Ltd. and others, Civil Appeal Nos.5542 judgment of Supreme Court in UCO Bank and othe 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GURDASPUR AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA **** Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4/caveators. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Present petition has been preferred see authorities in terms of section 14 of the Securiti Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Interest Act, 2002. The relief herein is required to be taken up before the concerned in terms of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act law laid down by the Supreme Court in and others vs. Naveen Mathew Philip and another, [2023] 4 S.C.R. 18, and CELIR LLP vs. Bafna Motors Private Ltd. and others, Civil Appeal Nos.5542-5543 of 2023 as well as recent three Judges Bench judgment of Supreme Court in PHR Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank and others, 2024 (4) SCR 541 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7801-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.03.2025 . . . . Petitioner MAGISTRATE, GURDASPUR AND OTHERS . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA respondent Nos.3 and 4/caveators. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Present petition has been preferred seeking a mandamus to the authorities in terms of section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security The relief herein is required to be taken up before the concerned forum in terms of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, and also in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in M/S South Indian Bank Ltd. Mathew Philip and another, [2023] 4 S.C.R. 18, and CELIR LLP vs. Bafna Motors Private Ltd. and others, Civil as well as recent three Judges Bench PHR Invent Educational Society vs. rs, 2024 (4) SCR 541. (O&M) 20.03.2025 Petitioner s a mandamus to the ation and Security forum the South Indian Bank Ltd. Mathew Philip and another, [2023] 4 S.C.R. 18, and CELIR LLP vs. Bafna Motors Private Ltd. and others, Civil as well as recent three Judges Bench PHR Invent Educational Society vs. MOHIT GOYAL 2025.03.21 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7801-2025 3. This Court in Indian Overseas Bank one of us was a member, petitioner. Even otherwise, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ltd. and others vs. Naveen Mathew Philip and another, [2023] 4 S.C.R. 18, and CELIR LLP vs. Bafna Private Ltd. and others, Civil Appeal Nos.5542 2023 Supreme Court in UCO Bank and others, 2024 (4) SCR 541 petition would not be maintainable with passed by the DRT, and the forum has been wrongly chosen by the petitioner.” 4. In view thereto, efficacious alternate remedy available as observed above, with the liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum for appropriate relief. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. 20.03.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2025 (O&M) This Court in CWP-14655-2024 titled as ‘ Indian Overseas Bank and Another’, decided on one of us was a member, held as under: “6. In view thereto, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Even otherwise, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in M/S Ltd. and others vs. Naveen Mathew Philip and another, [2023] 4 S.C.R. 18, and CELIR LLP vs. Bafna Private Ltd. and others, Civil Appeal Nos.5542 2023 as well as recent three Judges Bench judgment of Supreme Court in PHR Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank and others, 2024 (4) SCR 541 petition would not be maintainable with passed by the DRT, and the forum has been wrongly chosen by the petitioner.” ew thereto, the present writ petition efficacious alternate remedy available as observed above, with the liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum for appropriate All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKAS (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No 2024 titled as ‘M/S K. Soni Builders vs. , decided on 16.10.2024, wherein held as under: In view thereto, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Even otherwise, keeping in view the law laid M/S South Indian Bank Ltd. and others vs. Naveen Mathew Philip and another, [2023] 4 S.C.R. 18, and CELIR LLP vs. Bafna Motors Private Ltd. and others, Civil Appeal Nos.5542-5543 of as well as recent three Judges Bench judgment of PHR Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank and others, 2024 (4) SCR 541, the writ petition would not be maintainable with regard to orders passed by the DRT, and the forum has been wrongly the present writ petition is dismissed on account of efficacious alternate remedy available as observed above, with the liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum for appropriate All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No vs. n is dismissed on account of efficacious alternate remedy available as observed above, with the liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum for appropriate MOHIT GOYAL 2025.03.21 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document