CWP-21514-2022 ( O&M ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA M/s Sahil Sialkot Retail Outlet and Filling Station, Village Todarmajra Chunni Road, District SAS Nagar Mohali and others Authorized Officer, Yest Bank and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. 16.09.2021 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘SARFAESI Act’ 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 2022 ( O&M ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sahil Sialkot Retail Outlet and Filling Station, Village Todarmajra Chunni Road, District SAS Nagar Mohali and others Versus Authorized Officer, Yest Bank and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. Parunjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Rishi, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Indresh Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral ) The petitioners are before this Co 1 (Annexure P-16) issued by the (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘SARFAESI Act’ The scheme of SARFAESI Act is such, which provi 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). -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21514-2022 ( O&M ) Date of decision : 12.08.2025 Sahil Sialkot Retail Outlet and Filling Station, Village Todarmajra Chunni Road, District SAS Nagar Mohali and others …….Petitioner ...….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. Parunjeet Singh, Advocate, ( Oral ) before this Court assailing notice dated 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’). 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 adopted by Bank under Section 13 (4). ( O&M ) .2025 Sahil Sialkot Retail Outlet and Filling Station, Village Todarmajra Chunni …….Petitioners ...….Respondents urt assailing notice dated Bank under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and des 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 NAROTAM DASS 2025.08.20 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-21514-2022 ( O&M ) 2.1 against a notice issued under Section 13 (2). The petitioner issuance of notice under Section 13 (4). [Please see Vs. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 (Para 48).] 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 not to be exercised [Please see : others, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 22 (Paras 14 4. absence of any ground made out for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, this Court declines interference with liberty to the petitioner remedy available in law. 5. on merits with aforesaid liberty. 6. August 12, 2025 narotam Whether Whether reportable 2022 ( O&M ) However, the SARFAESI Act does not against a notice issued under Section 13 (2). The petitioner issuance of notice under Section 13 (4). [Please see Vs. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 (Para 48).] In this case, the petitioners ha 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 [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 supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, this Court declines interference with liberty to the petitioner remedy available in law. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed on merits with aforesaid liberty. All the pending applications also stand disposed of. August 12, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -2- However, the SARFAESI Act does not provide for any remedy against a notice issued under Section 13 (2). The petitioners have to await issuance of notice under Section 13 (4). [Please see : Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 (Para 48).] have 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 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 petitioners to avail alternate Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of without commenting All the pending applications also stand disposed of. ( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( SANJIV BERRY ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No provide for any remedy to await : Mardia Chemicals Ltd. 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. in this regard. Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & In the attending facts and circumstances of the case and in the power of judicial review or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, this to avail alternate of without commenting NAROTAM DASS 2025.08.20 16:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment