224 CWP-10024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA SURINDERPAL KAUR AND OTHERS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present:- None Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate for respondents **** SHEEL NAGU, C.J. 1. None appeared on behalf of petitioners. 2. The petitioners, who are borrowers, have approached this Court challenging notice dated 13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( and notices (Annexure P- 3. The Apex Court has consistently he 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 Recove 10024-2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: SURINDERPAL KAUR AND OTHERS VERSUS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANOTHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY None for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate for respondents-Bank. **** SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral) None appeared on behalf of petitioners. The petitioners, who are borrowers, have approached this Court challenging notice dated 21.07.2020 ) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( s dated 10.04.2022 (Annexure P -3) and 16.04.2022 (Annexure P- The Apex Court has consistently he 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 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-10024-2022 Date of Decision: 10.09.2025 ...Petitioners PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANOTHER ...Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY None appeared on behalf of petitioners. The petitioners, who are borrowers, have approached this (Annexure P-1) issued u/s ) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act) dated 10.04.2022 (Annexure P-2), 12.04.2022 -4), 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 recovery mechanism but also ry Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts KANIKA 2025.09.12 11:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 224 CWP-10024 Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). 4. 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. 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, (2022) 5 SCC 345 (Paras 10, 21) ;PHR Invent Educational Society versus UCO Bank and others, 2024 (6)SCC 579 (Paras 22 to 41), jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution. 6. The petitioners are relegated to avail the appropriate statutory remedy under the SARF before DRAT. In case the petitioner 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. 7. Interim relief, if granted, in the present petition, shall continue till DRT takes fresh decision on the question of interim relief, provided 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 Tribunal while decidin relief, if admissible to the petitioner Tribunal shall decide the request for interim relief strictly on merits of the 10024-2022 Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). 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 Vidya Mandir and others, (2022) 5 SCC 345 (Paras 10, 21) ;PHR ducational 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 appropriate 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 its, 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 petitioners approaches 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 decidin 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 -2- 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 Vidya Mandir and others, (2022) 5 SCC 345 (Paras 10, 21) ;PHR ducational 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 AESI 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 copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided on its own its, 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 approaches 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 . We further make it clear that the Tribunal shall decide the request for interim relief strictly on merits of the KANIKA 2025.09.12 11:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 224 CWP-10024 matter, without being influenced by the fact of petitioner approached this Court or this Court having passed the present order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty without commenting on merits, without cost. 10.09.2025 Kanika 10024-2022 matter, without being influenced by the fact of petitioner ed 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. Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No -3- matter, without being influenced by the fact of petitioners having ed 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. (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No KANIKA 2025.09.12 11:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document