CWP-25896-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Rinku Kumar Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE M Present: SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. challenging order dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P Magistrate, Sangrur, under Section 14 o of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, ‘SARFAESI Act’), on various grounds. 2. refrain from interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI proceedings. The SARFAESI Act is a complete code, which not on for a detailed recovery mechanism but also remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rinku Kumar Versus Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Mr. Chetan Goyal, Advocate (through video conferencing), for the petitioner. **** SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral ) The petitioner, who is a borrower, has approached this Court challenging order dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P Magistrate, Sangrur, under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, ‘SARFAESI Act’), on various grounds. 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 is a complete code, which not on for a detailed recovery mechanism but also remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-25896-2025 Date of decision : 02.09.2025 …….Petitioner Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited and others ...….Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE R. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR r. Chetan Goyal, Advocate (through video conferencing), ( Oral ) is a borrower, has approached this Court challenging order dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Chief Judicial f the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, 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 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 2025 .2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondents is a borrower, has approached this Court 1) passed by Chief Judicial f the Securitisation and Reconstruction 2002 (in short, The Apex Court has consistently held that High Courts should refrain from interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI ly provides for a detailed recovery mechanism but also remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal NAROTAM DASS 2025.09.03 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-25896-2025 3. petitioner has availed th and/or DRAT. 4 Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) AIR SC 3413 (Paras 17, 27); Phoenix ARC Private Limited Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vid (2022) 5 SCC 345 (Paras 10, 21); Versus UCO Bank and others, 2024 (6) SCC 579 (Paras 22 to 41) refrains from exercising 5. 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 be considered and decided on its own merits, without being dismissed on limitation alone. 6. liberty without commenting on merits, without cost. September 02 narotam Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2025 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. In view of above and the ratio laid down by Apex Court in Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) AIR SC 3413 (Paras 17, 27); Phoenix ARC Private Limited Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vid (2022) 5 SCC 345 (Paras 10, 21); and Versus UCO Bank and others, 2024 (6) SCC 579 (Paras 22 to 41) refrains from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is relegated to avail 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 be considered and decided on its own merits, without being dismissed on limitation alone. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty without commenting on merits, without cost. September 02, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -2- From the averments in the petition, it does not appear that the e statutory alternative remedy of approaching the DRT In view of above and the ratio laid down by Apex Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) AIR SC 3413 (Paras 17, 27); Phoenix ARC Private Limited Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and others, and PHR Invent Educational Society Versus UCO Bank and others, 2024 (6) SCC 579 (Paras 22 to 41), this Court jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. ner is relegated to avail 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, same shall be considered and decided on its own merits, without being dismissed on Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty without commenting on merits, without cost. ( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No From the averments in the petition, it does not appear that the e statutory alternative remedy of approaching the DRT United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) AIR SC 3413 (Paras 17, 27); ya Mandir and others, PHR Invent Educational Society his Court ner is relegated to avail 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 this order, same shall be considered and decided on its own merits, without being dismissed on Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR ) NAROTAM DASS 2025.09.03 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment