CWP-17298-2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA M/s Satkar and Company Union Bank of India CORAM: HON'BLE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. 22.04.2022 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘SA which the petitioner responded on 22.06.2022 vide Annexure P 2. for a Forum of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 but also under Section 18 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), to assail the recourses 2.1 against a notice issued under Section 13 (2). The petitioner has to await issuance of notice under Section 13 (4). [Please see : Vs. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 (Para 48). 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M/s Satkar and Company Versus Union Bank of India and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY None. **** SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral ) The petitioner is before this Co 2 (Annexure P-2) issued by the respondent (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘SA which the petitioner responded on 22.06.2022 vide Annexure P The scheme of SARFAESI Act is such, which provides not only for a Forum of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 but also under Section 18 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), to recourses adopted by Bank under Section 13 (4). However, the SARFAESI Act does not provide for any remedy against a notice issued under Section 13 (2). The petitioner has to await issuance of notice under Section 13 (4). [Please see : Vs. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 (Para 48). -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17298-2022 Date of decision : 12.08.2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondents MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY ( Oral ) The petitioner is before this Court assailing notice dated ) issued by the respondent – Bank under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘SARFAESI Act’), to which the petitioner responded on 22.06.2022 vide Annexure P-3 Act is such, which provides not only for a Forum of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 but also under Section 18 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), to adopted by Bank under Section 13 (4). he SARFAESI Act does not provide for any remedy against a notice issued under Section 13 (2). The petitioner has to await issuance of notice under Section 13 (4). [Please see : Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 (Para 48).] 2022 .2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondents urt assailing notice dated Bank under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and RFAESI Act’), to Act is such, which provides not only for a Forum of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 but also under Section 18 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), to he SARFAESI Act does not provide for any remedy against a notice issued under Section 13 (2). The petitioner has to await Mardia Chemicals Ltd. NAROTAM DASS 2025.08.18 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-17298-2022 3. violation of statutory provision under SARFAESI Act or any constitutional right or proven malafide or authority being bereft of jurisdiction to pass orders. Therefore, power of judicial review ought [Please see : & others, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 22 (Paras 14 4. absence of any ground made supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, this Court declines interference with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternate remedy available in law. 5. on merits with aforesaid liberty. August 12, 2025 narotam Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2022 In this case, the petitioner has failed to show any ground of violation of statutory provision under SARFAESI Act or any constitutional right or proven malafide or authority being bereft of jurisdiction to pass orders. Therefore, power of judicial review ought [Please see : Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 22 (Paras 14 In the attending facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any ground made out for invoking the power of judicial review or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, this Court declines interference with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternate remedy available in law. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of without commenting on merits with aforesaid liberty. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -2- his case, the petitioner has failed to show any ground of violation of statutory provision under SARFAESI Act or any constitutional right or proven malafide or authority being bereft of jurisdiction to pass orders. Therefore, power of judicial review ought not to be exercised in this regard. Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 22 (Paras 14-20)]. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case and in the out for invoking the power of judicial review or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, this Court declines interference with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternate tion stands disposed of without commenting ( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( SANJIV BERRY ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No his case, the petitioner has failed to show any ground of violation of statutory provision under SARFAESI Act or any constitutional right or proven malafide or authority being bereft of jurisdiction to pass orders. not to be exercised in this regard. Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai In the attending facts and circumstances of the case and in the out for invoking the power of judicial review or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, this Court declines interference with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternate tion stands disposed of without commenting NAROTAM DASS 2025.08.18 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment