Meenu Makkar and Anr. Vs Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Meenu Makkar and Anr. Vs Union Bank of India — 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: a Section 17 SARFAESI application filed before the DRT within 30 days with a copy of the order is to be decided on its own merits and not dismissed on limitation alone; interim relief, if any, continues until the DRT decides interim relief afresh, subject to the petitioners approaching the DRT within 30 days; no costs; pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution against SARFAESI measures (demand notice dated 24.08.2022 and possession notice dated 06.03.2023 under Section 13(4)) when the petitioners have an alternative statutory remedy before the DRT/DRAT and have not availed it. +1 more

Court's answer

Adopting the settled position laid down by the Apex Court (United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon; Phoenix ARC; PHR Invent) that High Courts should refrain from interfering under Article 226 in SARFAESI proceedings, the SARFAESI Act being a complete code with remedies before the DRT and DRAT, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226.

Ratio / Principle

On the averments in the petition, the petitioners appear not to have availed the statutory alternative remedy of approaching the DRT and thereafter the DRAT.

Key takeaways

The petitioners are relegated to the appropriate statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and thereafter before the DRAT.ratio¶¶21
If the petitioners prefer an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act within 30 days along with a copy of this order, the DRT shall consider and decide it on its own merits and shall not dismiss it on limitation alone.ratio¶¶21
Interim relief, if granted in the writ petition, shall continue until 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.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SARFAESI — writ petition under Article 226 by borrowers against demand notice dated 24.08.2022 (Annexure P-2) and possession notice dated 06.03.2023 (Annexure P-3) under Section 13(4) SARFAESI Act — disposed of, the Court refraining from exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction in view of the ratio in 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, as the petitioners had not availed the alternative remedy before the DRT/DRAT — petitioners relegated to Section 17 SARFAESI application before DRT, to be decided on merits if filed within 30 days and not dismissed on limitation alone — interim relief to continue until DRT decides interim relief afresh, conditional on approaching DRT within 30 days, failing which it lapses — DRT to decide interim relief strictly on merits, uninfluenced by the present order.

CWP-9798-2023 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-9798-2023 (O & M) Date of decision : 26.08.2 0 25

Meenu M akkar and another

…….Petitio n ers

Versus

Union B a nk of India

...….Respon d ent

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

Present: Ms. Pratula Sethi, Advo c ate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advoc a te, for the respondent-bank . (Through Video Confere n cing). ****

SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( O ral )

The petitioners, who ar e borrowers, have approac h ed this Co u rt challenging the demand notice dated 24.08.2 0 22 (Annexu r e P-2) and the possession notice dated 06.03.2 0 23 (Annexu r e P-3) issued u/s 1 3 (4) of Securitisation a nd Reconstr u ction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest A ct, 2002 (for short SARF A ESI Act), on various grou n ds.

The Apex Court has c onsistently held that H igh Courts s h ould refrain from interfe r ing under Article 226 of the Constitu t ion in SARFAESI proce e dings. The SARFAESI A ct, 2002 is a complete code which n o t only provides for a deta i led

AJAY PRASHER 2025.09.03 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-9798-2023 (O&M) -2-

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.

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.

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.

Interim relief, if granted, in the present petition, shall 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. It is made clear that if, petitioners approach the Tribunal within the

AJAY PRASHER 2025.09.03 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-9798-2023 (O&M) -3-

prescribed stipulated time, then this order shall not prejudice the mind of Tribunal while deciding the question of interim relief, if admissible to the petitioners. 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 petitioners having approached this Court or this Court having passed the present order.

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

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE

( SANJIV BERRY ) August 26, 2025 JUDGE Ajay Prasher Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

AJAY PRASHER 2025.09.03 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document