IN TH 213 M/s Satgur Manoj S.R CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GU violation o Division Satguru F another”, w observation COCP-6280-2025 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR COCP No.6280 o Date of decision Satguru Foundations (Regd.) Versus S.R. (AGM) AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NI Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate f HI GUPTA J. (Oral) Present contempt petition tion of order dated 22.9.2025 (An Bench of this Court in CWP uru Foundation (Regd.) and anothe , whereby the petition was dispo tions :- “xxx xxx xxx 5. The petitioners a appropriate statutory re Act before the DRT an In case the petitioners p Section 17 of SARFAES days from today along same shall be consider 1 UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 6280 of 2025 (O & M) cision :-11.05.2026 …..Petitioner …..Respondent E NIDHI GUPTA ocate ocate for the respondent. ition has been filed alleging 5 (Annexure P-2) passed by a WP-12956-2022 titled as “M/s another vs. Canara Bank and disposed of with the following ers are relegated to avail the ry remedy under the SARFAESI and thereafter, before DRAT. ers prefer an application under AESI Act within a period of 30 ong with copy of this order, the idered and decided on its own VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.13 12.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document compliance the Debts R by filing an with an app main appli pending ad petitioner petitioner, on the ap submits th COCP-6280-2025 (O & M) merits, without being alone. 6. Interim relief, i petition, shall continu decision on the question the petitioners approa failing which, the interi It is made clear that i Tribunal within the p then this order shall Tribunal while decidin relief, if admissible to make it clear that the request for interim reli matter, without being petitioner, having appr Court having passed the xxx xxx xxx” Learned counsel for the p liance of the aforesaid order, the peti ebts Recovery Tribunal within the st ling an application under Section 17 o an application seeking interim relief. I application as well as the application ing adjudication before the Tribunal. It is further contended by ioner that despite repeated requests ioner, the Debts Recovery Tribunal ha he application seeking interim pro its that during the pendency of t 2 eing dismissed on limitation f, if granted, in the present ntinue till DRT takes fresh stion of interim relief, provided proach DRT within 30 days, nterim relief shall lose its effect. at if, petitioners approach the e prescribed stipulated time, all not prejudice the mind of ciding the question of interim to the petitioners. We further the Tribunal shall decide the relief strictly on merits of the ing influenced by the fact of approached this Court or this d the present order. the petitioner submits that in e petitioner had duly approached the stipulated period of 30 days n 17 of the SARFAESI Act along elief. It is submitted that both the lication for interim relief are still unal. d by learned counsel for the quests made on behalf of the nal has not yet passed any order m protection. Learned counsel of the said proceedings, the VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.13 12.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document respondent respect of t of the order of the respo learned cou question p Foundation present disp that the pr with regard alienate or petitioners Recovery T that the imp not fructifi absence of learned cou learned cou Division B to avail the COCP-6280-2025 (O & M) ndents proceeded to issue sale notices ct of the property in question, alleged e order passed by the writ Court. On the other hand, learned co e respondents has vehemently oppose ed counsel for the petitioner and subm tion pertain to another property m dation and not to the property form nt dispute. At this stage, learned counsel the principal grievance raised before regard to attempts being made by ate or dispose of unpartitioned prop ioners had been relegated to avail the very Tribunal. Learned counsel for the resp the impugned sale notices (Annexures ructified and the auction proceedings nce of bidders. The said factual po ed counsel for the petitioner. This Court has considered t ed counsel for the parties and perused A perusal of the order dated sion Bench shows that the writ Court h ail the statutory remedy before the De 3 notices (Annexures P-3 to P-5) in llegedly in disregard to the spirit ned counsel appearing on behalf pposed the submissions made by d submits that the sale notices in erty mortgaged by M/s Aasra y forming subject matter of the ounsel for the petitioner submits before the writ Court itself was e by M/s Aasra Foundation to d property and that is why the ail the remedy before the Debts e respondents, however, submits xures P-3 to P-5) have ultimately edings have failed on account of ual position is not disputed by ered the submissions made by rused the record. dated 22.09.2025 passed by the ourt had relegated the petitioners the Debts Recovery Tribunal and VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.13 12.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document had furthe considered the sale no property in of proceedi the presen successful auction pro considered the order continuatio remain at l Recovery T passed in th of. May 11, 20 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo COCP-6280-2025 (O & M) further observed that the request f idered by the Tribunal on its own mer ale notices pertain to the same proper erty involves disputed questions which oceedings before the competent Tribun It is also not disputed that the present contempt proceedings have essful auction sale, as admittedly no on proceedings. In the aforesaid circumstanc idered opinion that no case of wilful or order passed by the writ Court nuation of the present contempt proc in at liberty to pursue their respective very Tribunal in accordance with law. Accordingly, finding no furthe ed in the present contempt petition, the Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any , 2026 r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No 4 uest for interim relief shall be n merits. The issue as to whether property or to another mortgaged which are already subject matter Tribunal. hat the sale notices impugned in have not culminated into any ly no bidders participated in the mstances, this Court is of the ilful or deliberate disobedience of ourt is made out warranting pt proceedings. The parties shall tive remedies before the Debts th law. further direction necessary to be on, the same is disposed of. any, shall also stand disposed ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.13 12.11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document