Kanta Devi and Another Vs Housing Development… — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Kanta Devi and Another Vs Housing Development… — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with liberty: petitioners relegated to the statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter DRAT; liberty to file a Section 17 SARFAESI application within 30 days with a copy of the order, to be considered and decided on its own merits without dismissal on limitation alone; without commenting on merits and without cost.

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere in SARFAESI proceedings, given that the SARFAESI Act is a complete code providing a recovery mechanism and remedies before the DRT and DRAT. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court refrains from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI proceedings, in view of the consistent Apex Court position that High Courts should not interfere in such matters, the SARFAESI Act being a complete code with remedies before the DRT and DRAT.

Ratio / Principle

From the averments in the petition, the petitioners have not availed the statutory alternative remedy of approaching the DRT and/or DRAT.

Key takeaways

The petitioners are relegated to the statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter the DRAT; if an application under Section 17 is preferred within 30 days with a copy of this order, it shall be considered and decided on its own merits, without being dismissed on limitation alone.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Kanta Devi & Anr. v. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd & Ors., CWP-1034-2023 (P&H HC at Chandigarh, decided 25.08.2025, Sheel Nagu C.J. and Sanjiv Berry J.) - Borrower-petitioners challenged an order dated 31.01.2022 issued under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Held: the Court refrained from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI proceedings, relying on United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, since the SARFAESI Act is a complete code offering remedies before the DRT and DRAT; the petitioners, having not availed that alternative remedy, were relegated to it, with liberty to file a Section 17 application within 30 days to be decided on merits without a limitation bar; petition disposed of without cost or comment on merits.

249

CWP-1034-2023 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-1034-2023 Date of decision: 25.08.2025

KANTA DEVI AND ANOTHER ...PETITIONERS

Versus

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD AND ORS.

...RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY

Present: Ms. Savita Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sahil Khunger Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral)

Mr. Sahil Khunger, Advocate has put in appearance and filed power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.1, which is taken on record.

The petitioners, who are borrowers, have approached this Court challenging order dated 31.01.2022 (Annexure P-6) 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).

KANIKA 2025.08.29 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

249

CWP-1034-2023 2

From the averments in the petition, it does not appear that the petitioners have 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 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.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty without commenting on merits, without cost.

(SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE

(SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE

25.08.2025 kanika

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

KANIKA 2025.08.29 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document