Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 54780 (PNJ)

AMRIT ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GURDASPUR AND OTHERS

CWP/15255/2022 · 2025-08-12

Sanjiv Berry

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CWP-15255-2022 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-15255-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.08.2025 Amrit Enterprises and another ......Petitioners Versus Deputy Commissioner, Civil Secretariat Complex, Gurdaspur and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: Mr. Viren Sibal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Senior DAG, Punjab. Mr. Shailender Kashyap, Advocate, and Mr. Abhinav Bali, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 and 4. *** SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed by two petitioners; the first one being the sole proprietorship concern, which claims itself to be MSME unit under the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, while petitioner No.2 is the proprietor of the said firm. 2. The challenge herein is to the order passed by the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur, under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘SARFAESI Act’), primarily on the ground that the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India in respect of MSME units have not been AJAY PRASHER 2025.08.20 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15255-2022 (O&M) -2- adhered to by the respondent-bank while proceeding against the petitioners under the SARFAESI Act. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank does not dispute that a request had been made by the petitioner for One Time Settlement (OTS). The respondent-bank has approved the said OTS offered to it by the petitioner on 06.12.2024, by issuance of letter dated 05.03.2025. The period of compliance of the One Time Settlement by the petitioner is given as six months from the issuance of letter dated 05.03.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the terms and conditions of the OTS are being complied with by the petitioners. 5. In view of the subsequent developments, the Court declines interference on merits and relegates the petitioners to work out the OTS within a period of six months and in case, the OTS does not work out or the petitioner defaults by not following any terms and conditions of the OTS latest by 30.09.2025, the respondent-bank is free to take all possible lawful coercive steps permissible under the SARFAESI Act, while the petitioners shall also be free to take recourse to available remedies as per law. 6. Present petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 12.08.2025 Ajay Prasher Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No AJAY PRASHER 2025.08.20 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document