Sumesh Kumar Mehta Vs Uco Bank and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Sumesh Kumar Mehta Vs Uco Bank and Ors. — 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 DRAT; a Section 17 SARFAESI application filed within 30 days with a copy of the order to be decided on its own merits without dismissal on limitation alone; interim relief, if any, to continue till the DRT decides the question of interim relief, provided the DRT is approached within 30 days; disposal without commenting on merits and without cost.

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain a challenge to notices issued u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, when the petitioner has an unavailed statutory alternative remedy before the DRT and DRAT.

Court's answer

Following the ratio of the Apex Court 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 exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in SARFAESI proceedings.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is relegated to the appropriate statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act, i.e., before the DRT and thereafter before the DRAT.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner files 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 and shall not be dismissed on limitation alone.ratio¶20
Any interim relief granted in the writ petition shall continue till 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; the Tribunal shall decide interim relief strictly on merits, uninfluenced by the petitioner having approached this Court or this order.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Challenge to notices u/s 13(4) by way of writ petition under Article 226 - Petitioner had not availed the statutory alternative remedy before the DRT and DRAT - Relying on United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) AIR SC 3413; Phoenix ARC Private Limited v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, (2022) 5 SCC 345; and PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, 2024 (6) SCC 579, the High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and relegated the petitioner to the statutory remedy - Liberty granted to file a Section 17 SARFAESI application within 30 days with a copy of the order, to be decided on merits and not dismissed on limitation alone - Interim relief, if any, to continue till the DRT takes a fresh decision on interim relief, provided the DRT is approached within 30 days, failing which it lapses; Tribunal to decide interim relief strictly on merits, uninfluenced by the writ proceedings - Writ petition disposed of without commenting on merits and without cost.

217

CWP-24823-2022 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-24823-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.09.2025

SUMESH KUMAR MEHTA ...PETITIONER

Versus

UCO BANK AND ORS.

...RESPONDENTS

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

Present: Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.1 (through Video Conferencing).

SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral)

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging notices dated 16.06.2017 and 18.02.2022 issued u/s 13(4) 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.

KANIKA 2025.09.05 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

217

CWP-24823-2022 (O&M) 2

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. 5. 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 2025.09.05 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

217

CWP-24823-2022 (O&M) 3

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

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE

(SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE

03.09.2025 kanika
Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether reportable	Yes/No

KANIKA 2025.09.05 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document