CWP-17070-2020 (O&M) 1 106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17070-2020 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.09.2025 M/S NIAGARA METALS INDIA LTD AND ANR ....Petitioners Versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY ***** Present: Mr. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate (Arguing counsel) Mr. Saurabh Sudhir, Advocate Mr. Sushil K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate (Arguing counsel) Mr. Nitish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4. ***** SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral) 1. The challenge herein is only to notice u/s 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act for brevity) by the petitioners-borrowers. 2. This Court has already held that unless special circumstances are made out, there is no remedy available for the borrower to challenge notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act. 2.1 The scheme of SARFAESI Act allows remedy of preferring a representation u/s 13(3A) in response to notice u/s 13(2), whereafter the borrower needs to wait for the Bank or the Financial Institution to take recourse to coercive steps by issuance of notice u/s 13(4) of SARFAESI Act. 3. Learned counsel for the Bank has also pointed out that notice u/s 13(4) of SARFAESI Act had been issued on 30.06.2020, whereas the petition was filed thereafter on 08.10.2020 without assailing the said notice u/s 13(4) of SARFAESI Act. MOHIT GOYAL 2025.09.22 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17070-2020 (O&M) 2 4. However, this Court while taking cognizance of the matter had stayed the operation of order dated 16.02.2021 (Annexure P-10) vide order dated 09.04.2021. 4.1 Interestingly, the order dated 16.02.2021, which is a possession notice issued by the Naib Tehsildar cum Executive Magistrate, Sahnewal, was not even challenged in this petition by causing any amendment to the pleadings or the prayer clause. 5. Be that as it may, since the interim order seems to have continued till date since last about four years, this Court while refraining from entering into the merits of the matter in terms of several decisions of the Apex Court, declines to interfere on merits and relegates the petitioners to avail remedy u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act, which if availed within thirty (30) days from today, the interim order granted earlier on 09.04.2021 will though continue, but only till the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) takes a fresh call on the question of interim relief u/s 17 of SARFAESI Act and also on the question of limitation, and while doing so, the DRT shall not be adversely affected by the fact of interim order being continued by this Court or the petitioners having approached this Court. 6. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. 7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE (SANJIV BERRY) 22.09.2025 JUDGE mohit goyal Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No MOHIT GOYAL 2025.09.22 18:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document