Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 86971 (PNJ)

KARAM CHAND v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SANGRUR AND OTHERS

CWP/22152/2025 · 2025-08-02

Sanjiv Berry

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CWP-22152-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 106 CWP-22152-2025 Date of decision: 02.08.2025 KARAM CHAND ..PETITIONER Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SANGRUR AND OTHER ..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: Mr. Tarunveer Vashist, Advocate Mr. Shoryaveer Vashist, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * * SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner, who is borrower/guarantor, has approached this Court challenging order dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure P-7) issued under Section 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act), on various grounds. 2. 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, 2002 is a complete code which not only MOHIT GOYAL 2025.08.04 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22152-2025 -2- provides for a detailed recovery mechanism but also remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). 3. From the averments in the petition, it does not appear that the petitioner has availed the statutory alternative remedy of approaching the DRT and/or DRAT. 4. In view of the above and the view of Apex Court in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) AIR SC 3413 (Para 17, 27); Phoenix ARC Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and others, (2022) 5 SCC 345 (Paras 10, 21); PHR Invent Educational Society versus UCO Bank and others, 2024 (6)SCC 579 (Paras 22 to 41), this Court declines exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution. The petitioner is relegated to avail the appropriate statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter before DRAT. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty without commenting on merits. (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE (SANJIV BERRY) AUGUST 02nd, 2025 JUDGE R. Joshi Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHIT GOYAL 2025.08.04 16:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document