CWP-16996-2020 124+276 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT M/S S.R. TRADING COMPANY AND ANR INDUSIND BANK LTD AND ANR CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR Present: Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate with Mr. Lakshay Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mahir Mr. Akram Hussain, Advocate for respondent No.2. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. The Supreme Court in Naveen Mathew Philip and another, [2023] 4 S.C.R. 18 considered the law relating to maintainability and also entertaining of petitions 2. While the power Constitution of India including any person or authority of passing orders and issuing writs cannot be bound down, a self restraint has been observed by the Court time and again as and when there is effica Supreme Court has been time and again observing that this Court must restrain itself from exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the 2020 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TRADING COMPANY AND ANR Vs. INDUSIND BANK LTD AND ANR **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA **** Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate with Mr. Lakshay Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mahir Sood, Advocate with Mr. Akram Hussain, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) The Supreme Court in M/S South Indian Bank Ltd. and others vs. Naveen Mathew Philip and another, [2023] 4 S.C.R. 18 considered the law relating to maintainability and also entertaining of petitions by the High Court relating to SARFAESI Act. While the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India including any person or authority of passing orders and issuing writs cannot be bound down, a self restraint has been observed by the Court time and again as and when there is efficacious alternate remedy available under the law. The Supreme Court has been time and again observing that this Court must restrain itself from exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-16996-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.03.2025 TRADING COMPANY AND ANR . . . . Petitioners . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate with SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) South Indian Bank Ltd. and others vs. Naveen Mathew Philip and another, [2023] 4 S.C.R. 18 has considered the law relating to maintainability and also entertaining of relating to SARFAESI Act. of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India including any person or authority of passing orders and issuing writs cannot be bound down, a self-imposed restraint has been observed by the Court time and again as and when cious alternate remedy available under the law. The Supreme Court has been time and again observing that this Court must restrain itself from exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the (O&M) 20.03.2025 s s South Indian Bank Ltd. and others vs. has considered the law relating to maintainability and also entertaining of of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India including any person or authority of passing imposed restraint has been observed by the Court time and again as and when cious alternate remedy available under the law. The Supreme Court has been time and again observing that this Court must restrain itself from exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the MOHIT GOYAL 2025.03.21 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16996-2020 Constitution in cases where there is a specific alternate reme especially in cases relating to financial aspects. 3. In M/S judgment passed in Vidya Mandir, (2022) 5 SCC 345 the case of 85 and Varimadugu Obi Reddy vs. B. Sreenivasulu (2023) 2 SCC 168 it held as under: that the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are rather wide but are required to be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances in matters pertaining to proceedings and adjudicatory scheme qua a statute, more so in commercial matters involving a lender and a borrower, when the specific mechanism for appropriate redressal. appeals are disposed of. The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the High Court of Kerala and the High Court 4. A copy of the judgment was also sent to the registry of this High Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petition was entertained by this Court during the COVID meanwhile, issuing of notice of motion, and thereafter Rs.20 lacs has further been deposited. He is also ready to deposit another amount of Rs.60 lacs by way of two cheques. 2020 (O&M) Constitution in cases where there is a specific alternate reme especially in cases relating to financial aspects. M/S South Indian Bank Ltd. and others judgment passed in Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, (2022) 5 SCC 345, and the earlier judgments passed in case of State Bank of Travancore vs. Mathew K.C. (2018) 3 SCC 85 and Varimadugu Obi Reddy vs. B. Sreenivasulu (2023) 2 SCC 168 it held as under: “18. While doing so, we are conscious of the fact that the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are rather wide but are required to be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances in matters pertaining to proceedings and adjudicatory scheme qua a statute, more so in commercial matters involving a lender and a borrower, when the legislature has provided for a specific mechanism for appropriate redressal. 19. Reiterating the concern expressed, the present appeals are disposed of. The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the High Court of Kerala and the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. No costs. A copy of the judgment was also sent to the registry of this High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petition was entertained by this Court during the COVID meanwhile, he has already deposited a sum of Rs.24 lacs at the time of issuing of notice of motion, and thereafter Rs.20 lacs has further been deposited. He is also ready to deposit another amount of Rs.60 lacs by way of two cheques. Constitution in cases where there is a specific alternate remedy especially in cases relating to financial aspects. South Indian Bank Ltd. and others (supra), relying on the Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati and the earlier judgments passed in State Bank of Travancore vs. Mathew K.C. (2018) 3 SCC 85 and Varimadugu Obi Reddy vs. B. Sreenivasulu (2023) 2 SCC 168 18. While doing so, we are conscious of the fact that the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are rather wide but are required to be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances in matters pertaining to proceedings and adjudicatory scheme qua a statute, more so in commercial matters involving a lender legislature has provided for a specific mechanism for appropriate redressal. 19. Reiterating the concern expressed, the present appeals are disposed of. The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the High Court of Kerala and the of Punjab & Haryana. No costs.” A copy of the judgment was also sent to the registry of this High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petition was entertained by this Court during the COVID-19 period, and in the he has already deposited a sum of Rs.24 lacs at the time of issuing of notice of motion, and thereafter Rs.20 lacs has further been deposited. He is also ready to deposit another amount of Rs.60 lacs by dy relying on the Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati and the earlier judgments passed in State Bank of Travancore vs. Mathew K.C. (2018) 3 SCC 85 and Varimadugu Obi Reddy vs. B. Sreenivasulu (2023) 2 SCC 168, A copy of the judgment was also sent to the registry of this High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petition 19 period, and in the he has already deposited a sum of Rs.24 lacs at the time of issuing of notice of motion, and thereafter Rs.20 lacs has further been deposited. He is also ready to deposit another amount of Rs.60 lacs by MOHIT GOYAL 2025.03.21 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16996-2020 6. We have noticed his submissions forum to take notice thereto. With the observations made hereinabove, we hold that the present writ petition would not be maintainable now after COVID 7. Accordingly, we a before the DRT/concerned forum which shall be taken into consideration without going into the questi expected consideration the observ while passing orders, and the amount which he has deposited. Of course, the bank would be free to take up all its pleas before the DRT/concerned forum which shall decide the matter purely on merits. 8. With the afor 9. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. 20.03.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2020 (O&M) We have noticed his submissions only for the purpose of the concerned forum to take notice thereto. With the observations made hereinabove, we hold that the present writ petition would not be maintainable now after COVID-19 period is over, and the DRT being functional. Accordingly, we allow the petitioners to move appropriate petition before the DRT/concerned forum which shall be taken into consideration without going into the questi expected that the DRT/concerned forum shall also take into consideration the observations made by this Court from time to time while passing orders, and the amount which he has deposited. Of course, the bank would be free to take up all its pleas before the DRT/concerned forum which shall decide the matter purely on merits. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No only for the purpose of the concerned forum to take notice thereto. With the observations made hereinabove, we hold that the present writ petition would not be maintainable now 19 period is over, and the DRT being functional. llow the petitioners to move appropriate petition before the DRT/concerned forum which shall be taken into consideration without going into the question of delay, and it is that the DRT/concerned forum shall also take into ations made by this Court from time to time while passing orders, and the amount which he has deposited. Of course, the bank would be free to take up all its pleas before the DRT/concerned forum which shall decide the matter purely on merits. esaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No only for the purpose of the concerned forum to take notice thereto. With the observations made hereinabove, we hold that the present writ petition would not be maintainable now llow the petitioners to move appropriate petition before the DRT/concerned forum which shall be taken into on of delay, and it is that the DRT/concerned forum shall also take into ations made by this Court from time to time while passing orders, and the amount which he has deposited. Of course, the bank would be free to take up all its pleas before the MOHIT GOYAL 2025.03.21 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document