CWP No. 6707 of 2021 · Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 19 Aug 2025
- Bench
- SANJIV BERRY
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. 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, 2002 is a complete code which not only provides for a detailed recovery mechanism but also remedies before the…
- Para 44. In view of the above and the view of 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…
- Para 77. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: None for the petitioners. ***** Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Ms. Tanya Trehan, Advocate for Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate for the respondents-Bank. ***** SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral)
The petitioners, who are borrower, have approached this Court challenging order dated 30.01.2019 (Annexure P-2) issued u/s 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 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, 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. MOHIT GOYAL 2025.08.25 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6707-2021 (O&M) 2
In view of the above and the view of 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 petitioners prefer 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.
Operative part
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty without commenting on merits, without cost.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE
19.08.2025 mohit goyal (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes / No Yes / No MOHIT GOYAL 2025.08.25 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Constitution of India — art. 226; SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 19 Aug 2025. The bench was SANJIV BERRY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.