CWP-24203-2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Dr. B.S. Grewal Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited (IFCI) and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. Court as to why alternative statutory remedy under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction Security Interest Act, 2002 Recovery Appellate Tribunal against the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 (Annexure P be availed. 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Dr. B.S. Grewal Versus Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited (IFCI) and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Advocate, Ms. Ravinder Kaur, Advocate, and Ms. Tarannum Madan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, and Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Samar Ahluwalia, Advocate (through video conferencing), for Official Liquidator. **** SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral ) Learned counsel for the petitioner Court as to why alternative statutory remedy under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’, for brevity) Recovery Appellate Tribunal against the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24203-2022 Date of decision : 29.07.2025 …….Petitioner Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited (IFCI) and another ...….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY R.S. Randhawa, Advocate, Ms. Ravinder Kaur, Advocate, and Ms. Tarannum Madan, Advocate, Adarsh Jain, Advocate, and Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate, Mr. Samar Ahluwalia, Advocate (through video conferencing), ( Oral ) petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court as to why alternative statutory remedy under Section 18 of the of Financial Assets and Enforcement of (‘SARFAESI Act’, for brevity), to approach Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal against the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 1) passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal – II, Chandigarh, cannot 2022 .2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondents Mr. Samar Ahluwalia, Advocate (through video conferencing), has not been able to satisfy this Court as to why alternative statutory remedy under Section 18 of the of Financial Assets and Enforcement of h Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal against the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 II, Chandigarh, cannot NAROTAM DASS 2025.07.30 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-24203-2022 2. 15.07.2022 (Annexure out that this Court in CA No. 117 of 2022 in CP No.7 of 1996, of Scandomax India Ltd. (in Liquidation) co dissolution notice has been published in accordance with law, however, no objection has been received from any of the creditors, contributories, stake holders or the general public. In view thereof, th dissolved. amount available with him in accordance with law. Liquidator comply with the proposal made in para 2 and 6 of t the Debt Recovery Tribunal or any other statutory agency or the Court shall not be adversely affected by the dissolution of the company. 3. have come to an end, in view of the company in question having been dissolved and this Court having directed that proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall not be adversely affected by dissolution of the company. 4. High Courts exercising the power of judicial review in matters relating to SARFAESI Act, especially where alternative statutory remedy of approaching the DRT or DRAT is available. [see 2022 Learned counsel for respondent No.1, by referring to order dated 15.07.2022 (Annexure R-1), annexed to short reply dated 09.09.2024, points out that this Court in CA No. 117 of 2022 in CP No.7 of 1996, of Scandomax India Ltd. (in Liquidation), passed the following order : “As per the report of the Official Liquidator, in compliance with the order dated 16.05.2022, the proposed dissolution notice has been published in accordance with law, however, no objection has been received from any of the creditors, contributories, stake holders or the general public. In view thereof, the company is ordered to be dissolved. The Official Liquidator proposes to disburse the amount available with him in accordance with law. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, let the Official Liquidator comply with the proposal made in para 2 and 6 of the application. Needless to observe that the cases pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal or any other statutory agency or the Court shall not be adversely affected by the dissolution of the company.” From the aforesaid, it is evident that the have come to an end, in view of the company in question having been dissolved and this Court having directed that proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall not be adversely affected by dissolution of the The Apex Court, time and again, has come down heavily on the High Courts exercising the power of judicial review in matters relating to SARFAESI Act, especially where alternative statutory remedy of approaching the DRT or DRAT is available. [see Phoenix Arc Pr -2- Learned counsel for respondent No.1, by referring to order dated 1), annexed to short reply dated 09.09.2024, points out that this Court in CA No. 117 of 2022 in CP No.7 of 1996, In the matter , passed the following order :- “As per the report of the Official Liquidator, in mpliance with the order dated 16.05.2022, the proposed dissolution notice has been published in accordance with law, however, no objection has been received from any of the creditors, contributories, stake holders or the general e company is ordered to be The Official Liquidator proposes to disburse the amount available with him in accordance with law. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, let the Official Liquidator comply with the proposal made in para 2 and 6 Needless to observe that the cases pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal or any other statutory agency or the Court shall not be adversely affected by the From the aforesaid, it is evident that the liquidation proceedings have come to an end, in view of the company in question having been dissolved and this Court having directed that proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall not be adversely affected by dissolution of the Apex Court, time and again, has come down heavily on the High Courts exercising the power of judicial review in matters relating to SARFAESI Act, especially where alternative statutory remedy of approaching Phoenix Arc Private Limited Vs. Vishwa Learned counsel for respondent No.1, by referring to order dated 1), annexed to short reply dated 09.09.2024, points In the matter liquidation proceedings have come to an end, in view of the company in question having been dissolved and this Court having directed that proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall not be adversely affected by dissolution of the Apex Court, time and again, has come down heavily on the High Courts exercising the power of judicial review in matters relating to SARFAESI Act, especially where alternative statutory remedy of approaching ivate Limited Vs. Vishwa NAROTAM DASS 2025.07.30 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-24203-2022 Bharati Vidya Mandir and others, (2022) 5 SCC 345; G. Vikram Kumar Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad and others, (2023) 14 SCC 159] 5. relegates the petitioner to avail Act before DRAT, which if availed within a period of three weeks from today shall be entertained and decided without being dismissed on limitation alone. However, in view of the aforesaid direction by this Court vid 15.07.2022, proceedings in OA No. 2642 of 2017 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal merits, and the stay granted by this Court on 20.10.2022 stands vacated. July 29, 2025 narotam Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2022 Bharati Vidya Mandir and others, (2022) 5 SCC 345; G. Vikram Kumar Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad and others, (2023) 14 SCC 159] Accordingly, this Court, without entering into merits of the case, relegates the petitioner to avail the remedy under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act before DRAT, which if availed within a period of three weeks from today shall be entertained and decided without being dismissed on limitation alone. However, in view of the aforesaid direction by this Court vid 15.07.2022, proceedings in OA No. 2642 of 2017 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal – II, Chandigarh, shall be taken up and decided on its own merits, and the stay granted by this Court on 20.10.2022 stands vacated. July 29, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -3- Bharati Vidya Mandir and others, (2022) 5 SCC 345; G. Vikram Kumar Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad and others, (2023) 14 SCC 159]. Accordingly, this Court, without entering into merits of the case, the remedy under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act before DRAT, which if availed within a period of three weeks from today shall be entertained and decided without being dismissed on limitation alone. However, in view of the aforesaid direction by this Court vide order dated 15.07.2022, proceedings in OA No. 2642 of 2017 pending before the Debts II, Chandigarh, shall be taken up and decided on its own merits, and the stay granted by this Court on 20.10.2022 stands vacated. ( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( SANJIV BERRY ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Bharati Vidya Mandir and others, (2022) 5 SCC 345; G. Vikram Kumar Vs. Accordingly, this Court, without entering into merits of the case, the remedy under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act before DRAT, which if availed within a period of three weeks from today shall be entertained and decided without being dismissed on limitation alone. e order dated 15.07.2022, proceedings in OA No. 2642 of 2017 pending before the Debts II, Chandigarh, shall be taken up and decided on its own NAROTAM DASS 2025.07.30 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment