Girish Kumar Vs Canara Bank and Anr. — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Girish Kumar Vs Canara Bank and Anr. — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to avail the statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter the DRAT; a Section 17 application filed within 30 days with a copy of this order to be decided on its own merits without dismissal on limitation alone; interim relief, if granted, to continue till the DRT's fresh decision provided the DRT is approached within 30 days; without cost; pending applications, if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should entertain, under Article 226 of the Constitution, a writ petition challenging a Section 13(4) SARFAESI notice, notwithstanding the statutory alternative remedies before the DRT and DRAT. +1 more

Court's answer

The SARFAESI Act, 2002 is a complete code which provides a detailed recovery mechanism and remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).

Ratio / Principle

This Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present SARFAESI proceedings.

Key takeaways

The petitioner is relegated to avail the appropriate statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter before the DRAT.ratio¶¶19
If the petitioner prefers an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act within 30 days along with a copy of this order, it shall be considered and decided on its own merits, without being dismissed on limitation alone.ratio¶¶19
Interim relief, if granted in the present petition, shall continue till the DRT takes a fresh decision on the question of interim relief, provided the petitioner approaches the DRT within 30 days, failing which the interim relief shall lose its effect.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice, with Sanjiv Berry, Judge; oral) — CWP-10928-2022, decided 26.08.2025 — Borrower Girish Kumar challenged Canara Bank's notice dated 16.03.2022 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Noting that the SARFAESI Act is a complete code providing a detailed recovery mechanism and remedies before the DRT and DRAT, and that the petitioner had not availed the statutory alternative remedy, and relying on United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon (AIR 2010 SC 3413), Phoenix ARC Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir ((2022) 5 SCC 345) and PHR Invent Educational Society versus UCO Bank (2024 (6) SCC 579), the Court refrained from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and relegated the petitioner to the statutory remedy. Liberty was granted: a Section 17 SARFAESI application filed within 30 days with a copy of the order to be decided on its own merits without being dismissed on limitation alone; interim relief, if granted, to continue till the DRT's fresh decision provided the DRT is approached within 30 days, the Tribunal to decide interim relief strictly on merits uninfluenced by this order. Writ petition disposed of without commenting on merits and without cost.

CWP-10928-2022

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-10928-2 0 22 Date of decision : 26.08.2 0 25

Girish K u mar

…….Petiti o ner

Versus

Canara B ank and another

...….Respond e nts CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY

Present: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advoc a te, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advoc a te, for the respondent-bank . (Through Video Confere n cing). ****

SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( O ral )

The petitioner, who is a borrower, has approac h ed this Cou r t challenging the notice d a ted 16.03.2022 (Annexur e P- 1) issue d u/s 13(4) of Securitis a tion and Reconstructio n of Financia l Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2 0 02 (for shor t SARFAESI Act), on vario u s grounds.

The Apex Court has c onsistently held that H igh Courts s h ould refrain from interfe r ing under Article 226 of the Constitu t ion in SARFAESI proce e dings. The SARFAESI A ct, 2002 is a complete code which n o t only provides for a deta i led

AJAY PRASHER 2025.09.03 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10928-2022 -2-

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 petitioner has 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 petitioner is 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 the DRT takes fresh decision on the question of interim relief, provided the petitioner approaches the DRT within 30 days, failing which the interim relief shall lose its effect. It is made clear that if, petitioner approaches the Tribunal within the

AJAY PRASHER 2025.09.03 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10928-2022 -3-

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. We further make it clear that the Tribunal shall decide the request for interim relief strictly on merits of the matter, without being influenced by the fact of petitioner 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.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE

( SANJIV BERRY ) August 26, 2025 JUDGE Ajay Prasher Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

AJAY PRASHER 2025.09.03 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document