Indian Bank Chd through Its Assistant General… — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Indian Bank Chd through Its Assistant General… — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with liberty, without commenting on merits and without cost; petitioner relegated to the statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter the DRAT; a Section 17 SARFAESI application filed within 30 days with a copy of this order to be decided on its own merits and not dismissed on limitation alone; interim relief, if granted, to continue till the DRT takes a fresh decision on interim relief provided the petitioner approaches the DRT within 30 days; impleadment application CM-16071-2024 allowed adding respondent No.2.

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution with an order issued under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act when the statutory alternative remedies before the DRT/DRAT have not been availed by the petitioner-Bank. +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 thereafter the DRAT.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the Apex Court's ratio in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, Phoenix ARC Private Limited v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, and PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, this Court refrains from exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Key takeaways

The petitioner is relegated to the statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter the DRAT; a Section 17 application preferred within 30 days from the date of this order, with a copy of the order attached, shall be considered and decided on its own merits and shall not be dismissed on limitation alone.ratio¶¶30
Interim relief, if granted, 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 loses effect; the Tribunal shall decide the interim-relief request strictly on merits, without being influenced by the petitioner having approached this Court or by this Court's order.ratio¶¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Sheel Nagu, C.J., oral, with Sanjiv Berry, J.) disposes of Indian Bank's CWP-1951-2024 (O&M) challenging the order dated 04.01.2024 issued under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Relying on United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) AIR SC 3413, Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir (2022) 5 SCC 345 and PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank 2024 (6) SCC 579, the Court refrains from exercising Article 226 jurisdiction, treating the SARFAESI Act as a complete code with DRT/DRAT remedies, and relegates the Bank to Section 17 SARFAESI: an application filed within 30 days with the order attached will be decided on its own merits and not dismissed on limitation alone; existing interim relief continues until the DRT takes a fresh interim-relief decision, which must be made strictly on merits without regard to this Court's order. Companion application CM-16071-2024 impleading respondent No.2 was allowed.

255

CWP-1951-2024 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CM-16071-2024 in/and CWP-1951-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.08.2025

INDIAN BANK CHD THROUGH ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER AND CONSTITUTED AUTORNEY SH. NISHANT SHUKLA

...PETITIONER

Versus

DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAITHAL

...RESPONDENT

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

Present: Ms. Jasleen Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

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

SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral)

CM-16071-2024

The instant application has been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India for impleading the applicant as respondent No.2.

Heard.

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the

same is allowed and the applicant-respondent No.2 is impleaded as party to the petition.

Amended memo of parties is taken on record.

Disposed of.

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

255

CWP-1951-2024 (O&M) 2

MAIN CASE

The petitioner-Bank, has approached this Court challenging order dated 04.01.2024 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 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 petitioner has 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 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.

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

CWP-1951-2024 (O&M) 3

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.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid

liberty without commenting on merits, without cost.

(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