Icici Home Finance Company Limited Vs… — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Icici Home Finance Company Limited Vs… — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ of mandamus to Respondents No.1 to 3 to execute the order dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by handing over physical possession of the secured asset to the petitioner Financial Institution as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 30 days; petition disposed of in these terms, subject to the stated caveats.

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondents No.1 to 3, including the Additional District Magistrate, Gurdaspur and the Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Batala, must execute the Section 14 SARFAESI order dated 26.03.2025 and hand over physical possession of the secured asset to the petitioner Financial Institution. +1 more

Court's answer

The Additional District Magistrate, Gurdaspur and the Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Batala failed to discharge their statutory duty of assisting and handing over physical possession of the secured asset to the petitioner Financial Institution.

Ratio / Principle

Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) are a huge burden on the public exchequer, banking and financial system; prompt enforcement of the recovery mechanism under the SARFAESI Act is paramount for liquidity in the system.

Key takeaways

By way of writ of mandamus, Respondents No.1 to 3 were directed to execute the order dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by handing over physical possession of the secured asset to the petitioner Financial Institution as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 30 days.ratio¶21
Thereafter, the petitioner Financial Institution may proceed to adopt all possible legitimate means to liquidate the secured asset to recover the due amount.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP-26031-2025) by ICICI Home Finance Company Limited, a financial institution, aggrieved by the non-execution of the order dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Gurdaspur under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Court found that the Additional District Magistrate, Gurdaspur and the Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Batala had failed to discharge their statutory duty of assisting and handing over physical possession of the secured asset, and observed that NPAs burden the public exchequer, banking and financial system, making prompt enforcement of SARFAESI recovery paramount for liquidity. By writ of mandamus, Respondents No.1 to 3 were directed to execute the said order and hand over physical possession of the secured asset to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 30 days, whereafter the petitioner may adopt all possible legitimate means to liquidate the secured asset and recover the due amount. The guidelines laid down by the Coordinate Bench in Bank of Maharashtra v. District Magistrate, Hisar (CWP-7018-2022, decided 28.05.2024) were directed to be adhered to; the Civil Court order dated 09.07.2025 in Civil Suit CS-361-2019 was declared not to come in the way of SARFAESI proceedings; and the order was made subject to any restraint/interim/final order of any judicial forum in favour of borrowers/guarantor/aggrieved persons party to the lis. Petition disposed of in these terms. Coram: Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice (author) with Sanjiv Berry, Judge; decided 03.09.2025.

CWP-26031-2025 1

111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-26031-2025 Date of decision: 03.09.2025

ICICI HOME FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED

....Petitioner

Versus

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GURDASPUR AND OTHERS

...Respondents

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

Present: Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate (through VC) for the petitioner.

Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral)

The present writ petition has been filed by petitioner Financial Institution aggrieved by non-execution of the order dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by Additional District Magistrate, Gurdaspur under the provisions of Section 14 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act for brevity).

It is rather surprising that Additional District Magistrate, Gurdaspur and Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Batala have failed to discharge their statutory duty of assisting and handing over physical possession of the secured asset to the petitioner Financial Institution.

2.1 Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) are a huge burden on the public exchequer, banking and financial system, and, thus, prompt enforcement of recovery mechanism under the SARFAESI Act is paramount for liquidity in the system.

MOHIT GOYAL 2025.09.04 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-26031-2025 2

In view of the above, this court by way of writ of mandamus directs Respondents No.1 to 3 to execute the order dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act by handing over physical possession of the secured asset to the petitioner Financial Institution as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of 30 days. The petitioner Financial Institution, thereafter, can proceed to adopt all possible legitimate means to liquidate the secured asset to recover the due amount.

The petition for the time being stands disposed of in the terms aforesaid. Needless to say that the guidelines laid down by Coordinate Bench in Bank of Maharashtra Vs. District Magistrate, Hisar And Others [CWP-70182022 decided on 28.05.2024] be adhered to by the concerned authorities. The order dated 09.07.2025 passed by Civil Court (Annexure P-4) in Civil Suit bearing No.CS-361-2019 shall not come in the way of SARFAESI proceedings. 5. We hasten to add that this order shall however be subject to any restraint/ interim/ final order which may have been passed by any judicial forum, in favour of the borrowers/ guarantor/ any aggrieved person, who is party to this lis.

(SHEEL NAGU)

CHIEF JUSTICE

03.09.2025 mohit goyal	(SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes / No
Whether reportable	: Yes / No

MOHIT GOYAL 2025.09.04 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document