M/S Ryan Computer Coaching Center and Others… — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

M/S Ryan Computer Coaching Center and Others… — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter the DRAT; any Section 17 SARFAESI application filed within 30 days with a copy of the order to be decided on merits without dismissal on limitation alone; existing interim relief continued until the DRT decides interim relief afresh, subject to the petitioners approaching the DRT within 30 days; no order as to costs; pending applications disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition challenging SARFAESI measures, notwithstanding that the SARFAESI Act is a complete code providing remedies before the DRT and DRAT. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court refrains from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the SARFAESI matter, following the consistent view of the Apex Court that High Courts should refrain from interfering in SARFAESI proceedings, the Act being a complete code with remedies before the DRT and DRAT.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners are relegated to avail the appropriate statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter before the DRAT.

Key takeaways

If the petitioners prefer 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¶26
The interim relief already granted in the writ petition will continue till the DRT takes a fresh decision on interim relief, provided the petitioners approach the DRT within 30 days, failing which the interim relief shall lose its effect.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SARFAESI — Writ petition under Article 226 by borrowers against demand notice, possession notice and Section 14 order — Held, High Court should refrain from interfering in SARFAESI proceedings, the Act being a complete code with remedies before DRT and DRAT; petitioners had not availed the statutory alternative remedy — Reliance on United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd., and PHR Invent Educational Society — Petitioners relegated to statutory remedy; Section 17 SARFAESI application filed within 30 days with copy of order not to be dismissed on limitation alone; interim relief to continue until DRT takes fresh decision, provided DRT approached within 30 days — Writ petition disposed of without commenting on merits and without costs.

1

CWP-8206-2023 (O&M)

274

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-8206-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.08.2025

M/S RYAN COMPUTER COACHING CENTER AND OTHERS

....Petitioners

Versus

AUTHORIZED OFFICER, JANA SMALL FINANCE BANK AND OTHERS

...Respondents

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

Present: Mr. Sahil Khunger, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.

Er. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral)

The petitioners, who are borrowers, have approached this Court challenging demand notice dated 09.06.2020 (Annexure P-7); possession notice dated 25.01.2022 (Annexure P-12); and order dated 27.03.2023 (Annexure P-13) issued u/s 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 petitioners have availed the statutory alternative remedy of approaching the DRT

MOHIT GOYAL 2025.08.27 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2

CWP-8206-2023 (O&M)

and thereafter, before DRAT.

In view of the above and the view of 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 petitioners are relegated to avail the appropriate statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter before DRAT. In case the petitioners prefer 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.

Since interim relief has already been granted in the present petition, the same will continue till the DRT takes 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.

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

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

(SHEEL NAGU)

CHIEF JUSTICE

(SANJIV BERRY)

19.08.2025

JUDGE

mohit goyal

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

MOHIT GOYAL 2025.08.27 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document