Parminder Kaur Vs Distt Magistrate Jalandhar… — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Parminder Kaur Vs Distt Magistrate Jalandhar… — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner relegated to the statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter the DRAT; a Section 17 application preferred within 30 days with a copy of this order to be considered and decided on its own merits without being dismissed on limitation alone; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should entertain, under Article 226 of the Constitution, a borrower's challenge to orders issued under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, despite the availability of the statutory alternative remedy before the DRT and DRAT.

Court's answer

From the averments in the petition, it does not appear that the petitioner has availed the statutory alternative remedy of approaching the DRT and thereafter the DRAT.

Ratio / Principle

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

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 filed within 30 days with a copy of this order shall be considered and decided on its own merits without being dismissed on limitation alone.ratio¶¶26
The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty, without commenting on merits and without cost; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.ratio¶¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SARFAESI Act, 2002 — Section 14 — Borrower's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging orders dated 11.04.2022 (Annexure P-1) and 07.12.2015 (Annexure P-2) — High Court declines interference: the SARFAESI Act is a complete code providing a detailed recovery mechanism and remedies before the DRT and DRAT, and the petitioner had not availed the statutory alternative remedy — Relying on United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) AIR SC 3413; Phoenix ARC Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, (2022) 5 SCC 345; and PHR Invent Educational Society versus UCO Bank, 2024 (6) SCC 579, the Court refrains from exercising Article 226 jurisdiction — Petitioner relegated to avail the statutory remedy; 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 — Writ petition disposed of without commenting on merits and without cost.

CWP-9669-2022 (O&M)

1

203

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-9669-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.08.2025

PARMINDER KAUR

....Petitioner

Versus

DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JALANDHAR AND ORS

...Respondents

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

Present: Mr. Sharik Minhas, Advocate for Mr. K.P.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate for respondent No.5.

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

*********

SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral)

The petitioner, who is borrower, has approached this Court challenging orders dated 11.04.2022 (Annexure P-1) and dated 07.12.2015 (Annexure P-2) 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

MOHIT GOYAL 2025.08.25 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-9669-2022 (O&M)

2

petitioner has availed the statutory alternative remedy of approaching the DRT 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 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.

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

2025 yal	(SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes / No
Whether reportable	: Yes / No

19.08.2025

mohit goyal

MOHIT GOYAL 2025.08.25 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document