228 CWP-24329 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA SUKHDARSHAN JAIN AND ANR HDFC BANK LIMITED AND ORS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present:- None Mr. Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent **** SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral) 1. None appeared on behalf of petitioner. 2. The petitioners, who are borrowers, have approached this Court challenging notice dated 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act), on various grounds. 3. Mr. Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent on record. He informs that the petitioner the last order directing deposit of Rs.2 crores with informs that the physical possession of the secured asset has been over by the respondent 4. The Apex Court has consistently held that High Courts 24329-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24329 Date of Decision: SUKHDARSHAN JAIN AND ANR Versus HDFC BANK LIMITED AND ORS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY None for the petitioners. Mr. Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent **** SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral) None appeared on behalf of petitioner. The petitioners, who are borrowers, have approached this Court challenging notice dated 15.03.2025 (Annexure P 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and orcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act), on various grounds. Mr. Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent-Bank and filed his power of attorney, which is taken on record. He informs that the petitioner-borrower has not complied with the last order directing deposit of Rs.2 crores with informs that the physical possession of the secured asset has been by the respondent-Bank on 19.08.2025. The Apex Court has consistently held that High Courts -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 24329-2025 Date of Decision: 09.09.2025 ...Petitioners ...Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent-Bank. None appeared on behalf of petitioner. The petitioners, who are borrowers, have approached this 15.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued u/s 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and orcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act), on Mr. Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advocate, has put in appearance on Bank and filed his power of attorney, which is taken borrower has not complied with the last order directing deposit of Rs.2 crores within 15 days. He further informs that the physical possession of the secured asset has been taken The Apex Court has consistently held that High Courts KANIKA 2025.09.11 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 228 CWP-24329 should refrain from interfering under Article 226 of the Co SARFAESI proceedings. The SARFAESI Act, 2002 is a complete code which not only provides for a detailed recovery mechanism but also remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). 5. From the averments in the petition, it does not appear that the petitioners have availed the statutory alternative remedy of approaching the DRT and thereafter, before DRAT. 6. In view of above and the ratio laid down by Apex Court in United Bank of Ind (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) jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution. 7. The petitioners are relegated to avail the appropriate statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter before DRAT. In case the petitioner pref 17 of SARFAESI Act within a period of 30 days from today along with copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided on its own merits, without being dismissed on limitation alone. 8. Interim reli till DRT takes fresh decision on the question of interim relief, provided the petitioner relief shall lose its effect. It is made clear that i 24329-2025 should refrain from interfering under Article 226 of the Co SARFAESI proceedings. The SARFAESI Act, 2002 is a complete code which not only provides for a detailed recovery mechanism but also remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). From the averments in the petition, it does not appear that the petitioners have availed the statutory alternative remedy of approaching the DRT and thereafter, before DRAT. In view of above and the ratio laid down by 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 refrains from exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution. The petitioners are relegated to avail the appropriate statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter before DRAT. In case the petitioner prefers an application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act within a period of 30 days from today along with copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided on its own merits, without being dismissed on limitation alone. Interim relief, if granted, in the present petition, shall continue till DRT takes fresh decision on the question of interim relief, provided the petitioners approaches DRT within 30 days, failing which the interim relief shall lose its effect. It is made clear that i -2- should refrain from interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI proceedings. The SARFAESI Act, 2002 is a complete code which not only provides for a detailed recovery mechanism but also remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts From the averments in the petition, it does not appear that the petitioners have availed the statutory alternative remedy of approaching the DRT and thereafter, before DRAT. In view of above and the ratio laid down by Apex Court in ia 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 this Court refrains from exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution. The petitioners are relegated to avail the appropriate statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter ers an application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act within a period of 30 days from today along with copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided on its own merits, without being dismissed on limitation alone. ef, if granted, in the present petition, shall continue till DRT takes fresh decision on the question of interim relief, provided approaches DRT within 30 days, failing which the interim relief shall lose its effect. It is made clear that if petitioners approach the KANIKA 2025.09.11 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 228 CWP-24329 Tribunal within the prescribed stipulated time, then this order shall not prejudice the mind of Tribunal while deciding the question of interim relief, if admissible to the petitioner Tribunal shall decide the request for interim relief strictly on merits of the matter, without being influenced by the fact of petitioner approached this Court or this Court having passed the present order. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty without commenting on merits, without cost. 09.09.2025 Kanika 24329-2025 Tribunal within the prescribed stipulated time, then this order shall not prejudice the mind of Tribunal while deciding the question of interim relief, if admissible to the petitioners. We further make it clear that the shall decide the request for interim relief strictly on merits of the matter, without being influenced by the fact of petitioner approached this Court or this Court having passed the present order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty without commenting on merits, without cost. Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No -3- Tribunal within the prescribed stipulated time, then this order shall not prejudice the mind of Tribunal while deciding the question of interim . We further make it clear that the shall decide the request for interim relief strictly on merits of the matter, without being influenced by the fact of petitioners having approached this Court or this Court having passed the present order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty without commenting on merits, without cost. (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No KANIKA 2025.09.11 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document