Dismissed¶¶17

M/S Bijan Motors and Anr. v. Uco Bank and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Sept 2025CWP/7712/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI Act 2002 Section 13(4) notice challenge; withdrawal of writ petition with liberty to approach DRT; continuation of status quo/interim relief conditional on 30-day window to approach DRT; Tribunal to decide interim relief on merits uninfluenced by High Court order; High Court of Punjab and Haryana; CWP-7712-2022; borrowers M/s Bijan Motors vs UCO Bank; Sheel Nagu Chief Justice; Sanjiv Berry Judge; decided 03.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal as withdrawn with liberty to approach the DRT; continuation of the interim/status quo relief till the DRT takes a fresh decision on interim relief, conditional on the petitioners approaching the DRT within 30 days (failing which the interim relief lapses). ¶¶17

M/S Bijan Motors and Anr. Vs Uco Bank and Anr. — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶17

Issue for consideration

Challenge by the borrower-petitioners to the notices dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure P-2) and 17.09.2021 (Annexure P-3) issued u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the order dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure P-4), on various grounds; not adjudicated, as the petition was withdrawn.

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the DRT.

¶¶17

Key takeaways

As the status quo order regarding dispossession granted on 18.04.2022 was subsisting, this Court grants continuation of that relief pending the DRT's fresh decision.ratio¶¶21
Interim relief, if granted in this petition, shall continue till the DRT takes a fresh decision on the question of interim relief, provided the petitioners approach the DRT within 30 days, failing which the interim relief shall lose its effect.ratio¶¶22
If the petitioners approach the Tribunal within the prescribed stipulated time, this Court's order shall not prejudice the Tribunal; the Tribunal shall decide the request for interim relief strictly on merits of the matter, without being influenced by the fact of the petitioners having approached this Court or this Court having passed the present order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP-7712-2022 (Punjab & Haryana HC, decided 03.09.2025; Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice authoring orally, with Sanjiv Berry, Judge): Borrower-petitioners M/s Bijan Motors and Anr. had challenged notices dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure P-2) and 17.09.2021 (Annexure P-3) issued u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and order dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure P-4), against UCO Bank and Anr. At the outset, counsel sought withdrawal with liberty to approach the DRT; the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with that liberty. As the status quo order regarding dispossession granted on 18.04.2022 was subsisting, the Court continued that interim relief till the DRT takes a fresh decision on the question of interim relief, provided the petitioners approach the DRT within 30 days, failing which the interim relief loses effect; the Tribunal is to decide any interim-relief request strictly on merits, uninfluenced by the fact of the petitioners having approached this Court or by this Court's order.

¶1

212

¶2

CWP-7712-2022 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-7712-2022 Date of decision: 03.09.2025

¶5

M/S BIJAN MOTORS AND ANR. ...PETITIONERS

¶6

Versus

¶7

UCO BANK AND ANR ...RESPONDENTS

¶8

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

¶9

Present: Mr. Rohit Suri, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.1-Bank (through Video Conferncing).

¶11

Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

¶12

¶13

SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral)

¶14

The petitioners, who are borrowers, have approached this

¶15

Court challenging notices dated 03.05.2021 (Annexure P-2) and 17.09.2021 (Annexure P-3) issued u/s 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act), and order dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure P-4) on various grounds.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, prays for withdrawal of the present petition with liberty to approach the DRT.

¶17

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty.

¶18

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

¶19

212

¶20

CWP-7712-2022 2

¶21

Since there is status quo order regarding dispossession granted on 18.04.2022 which is subsisting till date, this Court grants the aforesaid relief with the following observations:

¶22

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.

¶23

(SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶24

(SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE

¶25

03.09.2025 kanika

¶26

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶27

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

M/S Bijan Motors and Anr. v. Uco Bank and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bijan Motors and Anr. v. Uco Bank and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Cross Country Apparels Vs Canara Bank and Others

Punjab and Sind Bank Vs State of Punjab and Others

M/S Sandhya Finance Ltd. Vs Tilak Raj Arora

Tarsem Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sumesh Kumar Mehta Vs Uco Bank and Ors.

Icici Home Finance Company Limited Vs Additional District Collector Magistrate Cum District Gurdaspur