Rajwanti Vs Can Fin Homes Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Rajwanti Vs Can Fin Homes Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to pursue statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before DRT/DRAT, without commenting on merits and without cost; Section 17 application filed within 30 days not to be dismissed on limitation alone; existing interim relief to continue till the DRT decides interim relief afresh (subject to approach within 30 days); pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, which provides an alternative statutory remedy before the DRT and DRAT. +1 more

Court's answer

High Courts should refrain from interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI proceedings; the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is a complete code providing a detailed recovery mechanism and remedies before the DRT and DRAT.

Ratio / Principle

Following the Apex Court ratio in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd., and PHR Invent Educational Society, this Court refrained from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

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¶23
If the petitioner files an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act within 30 days along with a copy of the order, it shall be considered and decided on its own merits and shall not be dismissed on limitation alone.ratio¶23
Interim relief, if granted in the writ petition, shall continue until the DRT takes a fresh decision on interim relief, provided the petitioner approaches the DRT within 30 days, failing which the interim relief shall lose effect.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SARFAESI Act, 2002 – Borrower's writ petition under Article 226 challenging Section 13(2) notice dated 09.10.2018 and Section 13(4) notice dated 19.03.2021; District Magistrate had already allowed Section 14 application on 03.03.2022 – Held: SARFAESI Act is a complete code with recovery mechanism and remedies before DRT and DRAT; petitioner had not availed the alternative remedy; relying on United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd., and PHR Invent Educational Society, the High Court refrains from exercising Article 226 jurisdiction – Petitioner relegated to statutory remedy; any Section 17 application filed within 30 days with copy of the order to be decided on own merits, not dismissed on limitation alone; existing interim relief to continue till the DRT decides interim relief afresh, provided the petitioner approaches the DRT within 30 days, and the Tribunal to decide interim relief strictly on merits uninfluenced by these proceedings – Petition disposed of without commenting on merits and without cost.

231

CWP-1637-2022 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-1637-2022 Date of decision: 27.08.2025

RAJWANTI

...PETITIONER

Versus

CAN FIN HOMES LTD.

...RESPONDENTS

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

Present: Mr. Vikas Lochab, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Paramjeet Phor, Advocate for respondent.

SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral)

The petitioner, who is borrower, has approached this Court challenging notices under Section 13 (2) dated 09.10.2018 (Annexure P-1), (Annexure P-2) dated 19.03.2021 issued under Section 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act), on various grounds.

It is pertinent to mention that meanwhile, the District Magistrate, has allowed application filed by Bank under Section 14 on 03.03.2022 (Annexure P-4).

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 2025.09.04 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-1637-2022 2

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 petitioners approach the Tribunal within the 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.

KANIKA 2025.09.04 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

231

CWP-1637-2022

3

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid

liberty without commenting on merits, without cost.

Pending application, if any, be also disposed of.

(SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE

(SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE

27.08.2025 kanika Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

KANIKA 2025.09.04 12:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document