CWP-21245-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sukhdev Singh The Sangrur Central Co CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. dated 03.04.2025 Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 which the petitioner P-4. 2. for a Forum, including that under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) or under Section 18 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), to assail notice under Section 13 (2). The petitioner has to await issuance of notice under Section 13 (4), pursuant to which he is free to approach DRT under Section 17 and, the 3. Mardia Chemicals Ltd. thus: 48. within the framework of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sukhdev Singh Versus The Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Branch Dhuri HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocate, **** SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral ) The petitioner - borrower is before this Court assailing notice dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure P-2) issued by the respondent Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 which the petitioner – borrower has responded on 07.07.2025 vide Annexure The scheme of SARFAESI Act a Forum, including that under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery DRT) or under Section 18 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), to assail notice under Section 13 (2). The petitioner has to wait issuance of notice under Section 13 (4), pursuant to which he is free to approach DRT under Section 17 and, thereafter, DRAT, if occasion arises. The aforesaid view has been observed by the Apex Court in Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India 48. The next safeguard available to a secured borrower within the framework of the Act is to approach the Debts -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21245-2025 Date of decision : 28.07.2025 …….Petitioner operative Bank Ltd., Branch Dhuri ...….Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY , Advocate, for the petitioner. ( Oral ) borrower is before this Court assailing notice issued by the respondent – Bank under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘SARFAESI Act’), to borrower has responded on 07.07.2025 vide Annexure The scheme of SARFAESI Act is such, which does not provide a Forum, including that under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery DRT) or under Section 18 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), to assail notice under Section 13 (2). The petitioner has to wait issuance of notice under Section 13 (4), pursuant to which he is free to reafter, DRAT, if occasion arises. The aforesaid view has been observed by the Apex Court in Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 , reproduced as The next safeguard available to a secured borrower Act is to approach the Debts 2025 .2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondent borrower is before this Court assailing notice Bank under and (for short, ‘SARFAESI Act’), to borrower has responded on 07.07.2025 vide Annexure does not provide a Forum, including that under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery DRT) or under Section 18 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), to assail notice under Section 13 (2). The petitioner has to wait issuance of notice under Section 13 (4), pursuant to which he is free to The aforesaid view has been observed by the Apex Court in , reproduced as NAROTAM DASS 2025.07.30 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-21245-2025 Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. Such a accrues only after measures are taken under sub of Section 13 of the 8 upon the proceeding to take any of the measures as provided sub notice, if the borrower for consideration of the secur notice must be considered with due application of mind and the reasons they may be, must be communicated connection with this conclusion we have already discussion in the earlier part of the judgment. The reasons so communicated shall information/knowledge of the borrower without giving to any right to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the 3.1 Magistrate OnLine P&H 8493 “9 determined by the appropriate Forum petitioner. It is undisputed that interference by the High Court in exercise Constitution of India has to be limited in matters like the present circumstances, keeping in view available to aggrieved persons under SARFAESI Act itself. Gainful of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Satyawati Tandon, (2010) 8 SCC 110; South Indian bank 2025 Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. Such a accrues only after measures are taken under sub of Section 13 of the Act. XXXXXXX 80.1. Under sub-section (2) of Section 13 it is incumbent upon the secured creditor to serve 60 days' notice before proceeding to take any of the measures as provided sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. After service of notice, if the borrower raises any objection or places facts for consideration of the secured creditor, such notice must be considered with due application of mind and the reasons for not accepting the objections, howsoever brief they may be, must be communicated connection with this conclusion we have already discussion in the earlier part of the judgment. The reasons so communicated shall only be for the purposes of the information/knowledge of the borrower without giving to any right to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, at that stage. This Court in Kamla Rice and General Mills Versus District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Karnal and Others OnLine P&H 8493, while relying on the aforesaid case, “9. Therefore, in any case this would determined by the appropriate Forum petitioner. It is undisputed that interference by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India has to be limited in matters like the present and actuated only in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, keeping in view available to aggrieved persons under SARFAESI Act itself. Gainful reference in this respect can be made to judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Satyawati Tandon, (2010) 8 SCC 110; South Indian bank -2- Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. Such a right accrues only after measures are taken under sub-section (4) section (2) of Section 13 it is incumbent serve 60 days' notice before proceeding to take any of the measures as provided under section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. After service of raises any objection or places facts ed creditor, such reply to the notice must be considered with due application of mind and for not accepting the objections, howsoever brief they may be, must be communicated to the borrower. In connection with this conclusion we have already held a discussion in the earlier part of the judgment. The reasons so only be for the purposes of the information/knowledge of the borrower without giving rise to any right to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Act, at that stage. Rice and General Mills Versus District Commissioner, Karnal and Others, 2024 SCC while relying on the aforesaid case, observed thus : Therefore, in any case this would be an issue to be determined by the appropriate Forum as available to the petitioner. It is undisputed that interference by the High of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India has to be limited in matters like the and actuated only in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, keeping in view the specific remedies as available to aggrieved persons under SARFAESI Act itself. reference in this respect can be made to judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon, (2010) 8 SCC 110; South Indian bank Rice and General Mills Versus District 2024 SCC NAROTAM DASS 2025.07.30 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-21245-2025 Ltd. v. Naveen and PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO 6 SCC 579 : AIR 2024 SC 1893 in the case o 2025 Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip, (2023) 2 RCR (Civil) 771 and PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO 6 SCC 579 : AIR 2024 SC 1893. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Bank (supra) held as under: “13. ….. We may, however, reiterate the settled position of law on the interference invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India in commercial matters, where an effective and efficacious alternative forum has been constituted through a statute. xxx xxx xxx 14. A writ of certiorari is to be issued over a decision when the Court finds that the conform to the law or statute. In other words, courts are not expected to substitute themselves with the decision-making authority while finding the process along with the reasons assigned. Such a writ is not expected to violations. xxx xxx xxx xxx 15. The object and reasons behind the Act 54 are very clear as observed by Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311. While it facilitates a faster and smoother mode of recovery sans any interference from the Court, it does provide a fair mechanism in the form o Tribunal being manned by a legally trained mind. The Tribunal is clothed with a to set aside an illegal order and thereafter, grant consequential reliefs, including re payment of compensation and the SARFAESI Act gives an expansive meaning to the expression “any person”, who could approach the Tribunal. -3- Mathew Philip, (2023) 2 RCR (Civil) 771 and PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, (2024) . Hon'ble the Supreme Court South Indian Bank (supra) held as under:— 13. ….. We may, however, reiterate the settled position of law on the interference of the High Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters, where an effective and ternative forum has been constituted 4. A writ of certiorari is to be issued over a decision when the Court finds that the process does not conform to the law or statute. In other words, courts substitute themselves with the making authority while finding fault with the process along with the reasons assigned. Such a writ is not expected to be issued to remedy all 5. The object and reasons behind the Act 54 of 2002 are very clear as observed by this Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC While it facilitates a faster and smoother mode interference from the Court, it does provide a fair mechanism in the form of the Tribunal being manned by a legally trained mind. The Tribunal is clothed with a wide range or powers to set aside an illegal order and thereafter, grant consequential reliefs, including re-possession and payment of compensation and costs. Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act gives an expansive meaning to the expression “any person”, who could approach the NAROTAM DASS 2025.07.30 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-21245-2025 10. very well within the realm of Tribunal. Argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner that objections have been be a ground to cause specific provisions as contained in Sections 13(4) and 17 of SARFAESI Act which specifically provide that grounds for rejection cannot provide a cause person to resort to the remedy at that stage. 4. absence of any ground made out for invoking the power of judicial supervisory Court declines interference. 5. liberty. July 28, 2025 narotam Whether speaking/reas Whether reportable 2025 xxx xxx xxx 18. While doing so, we are conscious of the fact that the powers conferred under Constitution of India are r required to be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances in matters pertaining to proceedings and adjudicatory scheme qua a statute, more so in commercial matters involving a borrower, when the legislature has provided f specific mechanism for appropriate redressal.” 10. All the arguments as have been raised before us are very well within the realm of consideration by the learned Tribunal. Argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner that objections have been incorrectly decided, can also not be a ground to cause interference, keeping in view the specific provisions as contained in Sections 13(4) and 17 of SARFAESI Act which specifically provide that grounds for rejection cannot provide a cause person to resort to the remedy at that stage. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any ground made out for invoking the power of judicial supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of Constitu Court declines interference. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with aforesaid July 28, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -4- 8. While doing so, we are conscious of the fact that the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are rather wide but are exercised only in extraordinary circumstances in matters pertaining to proceedings and adjudicatory scheme qua a statute, more so in commercial matters involving a lender and a borrower, when the legislature has provided for a for appropriate redressal.” All the arguments as have been raised before us are consideration by the learned Tribunal. Argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner incorrectly decided, can also not interference, keeping in view the specific provisions as contained in Sections 13(4) and 17 of SARFAESI Act which specifically provide that grounds for rejection cannot provide a cause of action to aggrieved person to resort to the remedy at that stage.” 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 urisdiction under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, this Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with aforesaid ( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( SANJIV BERRY ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No In the attending facts and circumstances of the case and in the review or of India, this Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with aforesaid NAROTAM DASS 2025.07.30 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment