CWP-23194-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Anita State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. 25.09.2024 (Annexure P (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘SA 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 resources adopted by Ba 2.1 against a notice issued under Section 13 (2). The petitioner has to await issuance of notice under Section 13 (4). [Please see : Vs. Union of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Ms. Malvi Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. **** SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral ) The petitioner is before this Court assailing notice dated 25.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) issued by the respondent the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘SA 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 assail the resources adopted by Bank under Section 13 (4). However, the SARFAESI Act does not provide for any remedy notice issued under Section 13 (2). The petitioner has to await issuance of notice under Section 13 (4). [Please see : Vs. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 (Para 48).] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-23194-2025 Date of decision : 11.08.2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY , Advocate, Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. ( Oral ) petitioner is before this Court assailing notice dated 6) issued by the respondent – Bank under Section 13 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 nk under Section 13 (4). However, the SARFAESI Act does not provide for any remedy notice issued under Section 13 (2). The petitioner has to await issuance of notice under Section 13 (4). [Please see : Mardia Chemicals Ltd. India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 (Para 48).] 2025 .2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondents petitioner is before this Court assailing notice dated Bank under Section 13 the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and 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 However, the SARFAESI Act does not provide for any remedy notice issued under Section 13 (2). The petitioner has to await Mardia Chemicals Ltd. NAROTAM DASS 2025.08.12 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-23194-2025 3. violation of statutory provision under SARFAESI Act or any constitutional right or proven malafide or authority being bereft of jurisdiction to pass order Therefore, power of judicial review ought not to be exercised in this regard. [Please see : & others, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 22 (Paras 14 4. 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 petitioner to avail alternate remedy available in law. 5. on merits with aforesaid liberty. August 11, 2025 narotam Whether Whether reportable 2025 In this case, the petitioner has 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 order Therefore, power of judicial review ought not to be exercised in this regard. [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 th 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 petitioner to avail alternate available in law. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of without commenting on merits with aforesaid liberty. August 11, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -2- In this case, the petitioner has 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 order 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 petitioner to avail alternate Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of without commenting ( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( SANJIV BERRY ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No In this case, the petitioner has 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 e 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 petitioner to avail alternate Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of without commenting NAROTAM DASS 2025.08.12 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment