226 CWP-13368 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA NAVTEJ JHAMB CANARA BANK DHOLEWAL CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present:- Mr. Alok Mittal, for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for respondent. **** SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral) 1. The challenging notice dated Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFA grounds. 2. 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 onl 13368-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: NAVTEJ JHAMB Versus CANARA BANK DHOLEWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for respondent. **** SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner, who is borrower challenging notice dated 23.04.2025 (Annexure Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFA 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 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-13368-2025 Date of Decision: 09.09.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for respondent. petitioner, who is borrower, has approached this Court (Annexure P-16) 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 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 y provides for a detailed recovery mechanism but also KANIKA 2025.09.11 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 226 CWP-13368 remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). 3. From the averments in the petition, it does the petitioner has 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. 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. 5. The 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 alo this order, the same shall be considered and decided on its own merits, without being dismissed on limitation alone. 6 Since the petitioner has been protected by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2025, which appears to be subsisting till Court directs that the same shall continue but only for a period of thirty (30) days, whereafter the DRT shall take its own call on the question of interim relief the fact of this petitioner having approached this Court. 13368-2025 remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). From the averments in the petition, it does the petitioner has 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. 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. 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 alo this order, the same shall be considered and decided on its own merits, without being dismissed on limitation alone. Since the petitioner has been protected by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2025, which appears to be subsisting till Court directs that the same shall continue but only for a period of thirty (30) days, whereafter the DRT shall take its own call on the question of interim relief, if due as per the law, and shall not be adversely affected by the fact of this Court having continued with the interim order or the petitioner having approached this Court. -2- remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts From the averments in the petition, it does not appear that he statutory alternative remedy of approaching 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 this Court refrains from exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution. 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, Since the petitioner has been protected by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2025, which appears to be subsisting till date, this Court directs that the same shall continue but only for a period of thirty (30) days, whereafter the DRT shall take its own call on the question of due as per the law, and shall not be adversely affected by Court having continued with the interim order or the KANIKA 2025.09.11 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 226 CWP-13368 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty without commenting on merits, without cost. 09.09.2025 Kanika 13368-2025 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- 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 2025.09.11 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document