CWP-18329-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sarabjit Kaur Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. challenging notice dated 1 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘SARFAESI Act’), on various grounds. 2. refrain from interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI proceedings. The SARFAESI Act is a complete code, which not only provides for a detailed recovery mechanism but also remedies before the De Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). 3. the petitioner has availed statutory alternative remedy of approaching the DRT and thereafter, before 4. Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) AIR SC 3413 (Paras 17, 27); Phoenix ARC Private Limited Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and others, (2022) 5 SCC 345 (Paras 10, 21); 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sarabjit Kaur Versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd. and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. Ranjeet K. Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral ) The petitioner, who is borrower, has approached this challenging notice dated 18.05.2024 (Annexure P Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘SARFAESI Act’), on various grounds. 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 is a complete code, which not only provides for a detailed recovery mechanism but also remedies before the De Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal From the averments made in the petition, it does not appear that the petitioner has availed statutory alternative remedy of approaching the DRT and thereafter, before DRAT. In view of above and the ratio laid down by Apex Court in Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) AIR SC 3413 (Paras 17, 27); Phoenix ARC Private Limited Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and others, (2022) 5 SCC 345 (Paras 10, 21); and -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-18329-2024 Date of decision : 26.09.2025 …….Petitioner and another ...….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY , Advocate, for the petitioner. ( Oral ) The petitioner, who is borrower, has approached this Court .2024 (Annexure P-5) issued u/s 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘SARFAESI Act’), on various grounds. consistently held that High Courts should refrain from interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI proceedings. The SARFAESI Act is a complete code, which not only provides for a detailed recovery mechanism but also remedies before the De Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal From the averments made in the petition, it does not appear that the petitioner has availed statutory alternative remedy of approaching the DRT and the ratio laid down by Apex Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) AIR SC 3413 (Paras 17, 27); Phoenix ARC Private Limited Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and others, and PHR Invent Educational Society 2024 .2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondents Court of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘SARFAESI Act’), on various grounds. consistently held that High Courts should refrain from interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI proceedings. The SARFAESI Act is a complete code, which not only provides for a detailed recovery mechanism but also remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal From the averments made in the petition, it does not appear that the petitioner has availed statutory alternative remedy of approaching the DRT United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) AIR SC 3413 (Paras 17, 27); Phoenix ARC Private Limited Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and others, PHR Invent Educational Society NAROTAM DASS 2025.09.29 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-18329-2024 Versus UCO Bank and others, 2024 (6) SCC 579 (Paras 22 to 41) refrains from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter before DRAT. In case the petitioner prefers an application period of 30 days from today along with copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided on its own meri limitation alone. 6. the DRT takes fresh decision on the question of interim relief, provided the petitioner approaches DRT within 30 days, failing which t shall lose its effect. It is made clear that if petitioner approaches the Tribunal within the prescribed stipulated time, then this order shall not prejudice the mind of Tribunal while deciding the question of interim relief, if admissibl the petitioner. We further make it clear that the Tribunal shall decide the request for interim relief strictly on merits of the matter, without being influenced by the fact of petitioner having approached this Court or this Court having passed the pr 7. liberty, without commenting on merits, without cost. September 26 narotam Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2024 Versus UCO Bank and others, 2024 (6) SCC 579 (Paras 22 to 41) refrains from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is relegated to avail appropriate statutory remedy r the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter before DRAT. In case the petitioner prefers an application period of 30 days from today along with copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided on its own meri limitation alone. Interim relief, granted in the present petition, shall continue till the DRT takes fresh decision on the question of interim relief, provided the petitioner approaches DRT within 30 days, failing which t shall lose its effect. It is made clear that if petitioner approaches the Tribunal within the prescribed stipulated time, then this order shall not prejudice the mind of Tribunal while deciding the question of interim relief, if admissibl the petitioner. We further make it clear that the Tribunal shall decide the request for interim relief strictly on merits of the matter, without being influenced by the fact of petitioner having approached this Court or this Court having passed the present order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty, without commenting on merits, without cost. September 26, 2025 her speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -2- Versus UCO Bank and others, 2024 (6) SCC 579 (Paras 22 to 41), this Court refrains from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is relegated to avail appropriate statutory remedy r the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter before DRAT. In case the petitioner prefers an application u/s 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, without being dismissed on Interim relief, granted in the present petition, shall continue till the DRT takes fresh decision on the question of interim relief, provided the petitioner approaches DRT within 30 days, failing which the interim relief shall lose its effect. It is made clear that if petitioner approaches the Tribunal within the prescribed stipulated time, then this order shall not prejudice the mind of Tribunal while deciding the question of interim relief, if admissibl the petitioner. We further make it clear that the Tribunal shall decide the request for interim relief strictly on merits of the matter, without being influenced by the fact of petitioner having approached this Court or this Court 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 , this Court The petitioner is relegated to avail appropriate statutory remedy r the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter before DRAT. In 17 of SARFAESI Act within a period of 30 days from today along with copy of this order, the same shall be ts, without being dismissed on Interim relief, granted in the present petition, shall continue till the DRT takes fresh decision on the question of interim relief, provided the he interim relief shall lose its effect. It is made clear that if petitioner approaches the Tribunal within the prescribed stipulated time, then this order shall not prejudice the mind of Tribunal while deciding the question of interim relief, if admissible to the petitioner. We further make it clear that the Tribunal shall decide the request for interim relief strictly on merits of the matter, without being influenced by the fact of petitioner having approached this Court or this Court Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid NAROTAM DASS 2025.09.29 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment