CWP-16617-2026(O&M) -1- 122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-16617-2026(O&M) Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 M/S ELECTRONICA FINANCE LTD. ....Petitioner (s) Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: Mr.Jatin Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shubhra Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. **** JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 2. Mr. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 and has filed his power of attorney in the Court today, which is taken on record. 3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 has brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court, whereby a Securitization Application (SA) is already pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and in the index of the present petition, at serial No.9, it has been stated that no such RAKESH KUMAR 2026.07.09 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-16617-2026(O&M) -2- application is pending and similarly, no such averment has been made with regard to the same in the petition nor any document has been attached with regard to the pendency of the said Securitization Application (SA). 4. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 has supplied a copy of order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Chandigarh, wherein the learned counsel for the Financial Institution was present which shows that the petitioner was well aware of the pendency of the said application. The photocopy of the aforesaid order dated 13.01.2026 is hereby taken on record as Mark-‘X’. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner tenders his unconditional apology with regard to the same and he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a fresh petition with better particulars. 6. A perusal of the aforesaid note would show that it has been specifically stated by the petitioner that no DRT/DRAT application is pending. It will be necessary to note here that by way of an order passed in CWP-36247-2025, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.12.2025 had issued directions to the Registry of this Court to henceforth not accept any petition filed by any Bank/Financial Institution seeking execution of an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, unless the petition contains a specific averment regarding the pendency or non- pendency of any Securitization Application/Appeal filed by the borrower(s)/co-borrower(s) or any other stakeholder(s) relating to the loan transaction before the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and thereupon, Hon'ble the Chief Justice had ordered that it is henceforth mandatory for any Bank or Financial Institution filing a case seeking execution of an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to RAKESH KUMAR 2026.07.09 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-16617-2026(O&M) -3- give a note as to whether any Securitization Application or Appeal filed by the borrower(s)/co-borrower(s), or any other stakeholder(s) relating to the loan transaction is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal or not. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted this mistake that it has been wrongly mentioned in the index that no such application is pending nor any such averment has been made in the present petition. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking withdrawal of the present petition with liberty to file a fresh petition with better particulars. 9. We are of the considered view that the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner can be accepted only subject to payment of costs. 10. Consequently, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for withdrawal of the present petition with liberty to file a fresh petition with better particulars, is accepted. 11. The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition with better particulars, subject to payment of costs. The costs are assessed at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), which shall be deposited by the petitioner before the High Court Legal Services Committee, within a period of one month from today. (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI) JUDGE (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 06.07.2026 rakesh Whether speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAKESH KUMAR 2026.07.09 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment