CWP-10928 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Girish Kumar Canara Bank and another CORAM: Present: SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. this Court challenging 1) issued u/s 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI 2. 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 deta 10928-2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Girish Kumar Versus Canara Bank and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate, for the respondent-bank. (Through Video Conferencing). **** SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral ) The petitioner, who is a this Court challenging the notice dated ) issued u/s 13(4) of Securitisation and 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 deta -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-10928-2022 Date of decision : 26.08.2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Arihant Jain, Advocate, r. Gaurav Goel, Advocate, bank. (Through Video Conferencing). ( Oral ) is a borrower, has approached notice dated 16.03.2022 (Annexure ) issued u/s 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 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 2022 Date of decision : 26.08.2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondents NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE approached (Annexure P- ) issued u/s 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 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, iled AJAY PRASHER 2025.09.03 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10928-2022 -2- 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 petitioner has availed the statutory alternative remedy of 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 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 petitioner is relegated to avail the appropriate statutory remedy 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 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 the DRT takes fresh decision on the question of interim relief, provided the petitioner approaches the DRT within 30 days, failing which the interim relief shall lose its effect. It is made clear that if, petitioner approaches the Tribunal within the AJAY PRASHER 2025.09.03 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-10928-2022 -3- prescribed stipulated time, then this order shall not prejudice the mind of Tribunal while deciding the question of interim 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 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. 8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( SANJIV BERRY ) August 26, 2025 JUDGE Ajay Prasher Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No AJAY PRASHER 2025.09.03 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document