CWP-24206-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA M/s D.P. Mini Rice Mill Udyog Samiti State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present: SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. recourses taken by the respondent Bank Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘SARFAESI Act’ 2. No.65/2024, titled “M/s DP Mini Rice Mills Gram Udyog Smiti Vs. Punjab Sind Bank” has already been filed by the petitioner before the DRT challenging the proceedings initiated by the B for recovery of the due amount and the petitioner has defaulted in making the 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M/s D.P. Mini Rice Mill Udyog Samiti Versus State of Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Mr. Ankush Thakral, Advocate Mr. S.S. Bhullar, Advocate, and Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Anant Bir Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5. **** SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral ) The petitioner – borrower in the present petition is assailing the recourses taken by the respondent Bank Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘SARFAESI Act’ It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that SA No.65/2024, titled “M/s DP Mini Rice Mills Gram Udyog Smiti Vs. Punjab Sind Bank” has already been filed by the petitioner before the DRT challenging the proceedings initiated by the B for recovery of the due amount and the petitioner has defaulted in making the -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24206-2025 Date of decision : 21.08.2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI , Advocate (arguing counsel), Mr. S.S. Bhullar, Advocate, and Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate, Yadav, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. r. Anant Bir Singh Sidhu, Advocate, ( Oral ) borrower in the present petition is assailing the recourses taken by the respondent Bank under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘SARFAESI Act’). It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that SA No.65/2024, titled “M/s DP Mini Rice Mills Gram Udyog Smiti Vs. Punjab Sind Bank” has already been filed by the petitioner before the DRT challenging the proceedings initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act for recovery of the due amount and the petitioner has defaulted in making the 2025 .2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondents borrower in the present petition is assailing the ) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that SA No.65/2024, titled “M/s DP Mini Rice Mills Gram Udyog Smiti Vs. Punjab Sind Bank” has already been filed by the petitioner before the DRT ank under the SARFAESI Act for recovery of the due amount and the petitioner has defaulted in making the NAROTAM DASS 2025.08.22 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-24206-2025 part payment, as directed by DRT granted by DRT was lifted. 2.1 recovery of the due amount, by taking possession and liquidating the secured asset. 2.2 authority, the Bank is duty bound to proceed the secured 3. commenting on merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy already availed August 21, 2025 narotam Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2025 part payment, as directed by DRT-I, Chandigarh, and therefore, the protection granted by DRT was lifted. The respondent Bank is now proceeding ahe recovery of the due amount, by taking possession and liquidating the secured So long as there is no restraint order passed by any j authority, the Bank is duty bound to proceed the secured asset, in terms of the mortgage executed by the petitioner. In view of above, the petition stands disposed of, without commenting on merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the already availed under the SARFAESI Act. August 21, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -2- I, Chandigarh, and therefore, the protection The respondent Bank is now proceeding ahead for ensuring recovery of the due amount, by taking possession and liquidating the secured restraint order passed by any judicial authority, the Bank is duty bound to proceed to take possession and liquidate asset, in terms of the mortgage executed by the petitioner. In view of above, the petition stands disposed of, without commenting on merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the under the SARFAESI Act. ( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( RAMESH KUMARI ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No I, Chandigarh, and therefore, the protection ad for ensuring recovery of the due amount, by taking possession and liquidating the secured udicial take possession and liquidate In view of above, the petition stands disposed of, without commenting on merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the NAROTAM DASS 2025.08.22 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment