Disposed¶20

Au Small Finance Bank Limited v. the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana

Punjab & Haryana HC26 May 2026/12068/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Direction (mandamus) to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana to decide the petitioner's Section 14 SARFAESI application (Annexure P-2) as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 60 days from communication of the order, unless there is any legal impediment. ¶20

Au Small Finance Bank Limited Vs the Chief… — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana should be directed (via mandamus) to decide the petitioner's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act (Annexure P-2), pending since February 2026, within the time frame provided in the statute.

¶14

Court's answer

In view of this Court's earlier observations in Bank of Maharashtra v. District Magistrate, Hisar (2024(2) PLR 346) and IIFL Home Finance Ltd. v. State of Haryana, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana to decide the Section 14 SARFAESI application (Annexure P-2) as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 60 days from communication of the order, unless there is any legal impediment.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Suvir Sehgall and Vikas Suri JJ.; oral order dated 26.05.2026, CWP-12068-2026): AU Small Finance Bank Ltd., having classified its borrowers' (respondents No.2 to 5) loan account as NPA on 14.10.2025, issued notices under Sections 13(2) (31.10.2025) and 13(4) (19.01.2026) of the SARFAESI Act, taken symbolic possession of the secured asset, and moved an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in February 2026 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, which remained pending. Seeking a writ of mandamus for timely disposal, the bank's petition was disposed of by the Court which, relying on its own earlier observations in Bank of Maharashtra v. District Magistrate, Hisar, 2024(2) PLR 346, and IIFL Home Finance Ltd. v. State of Haryana (Law Finder Doc ID #2875322), directed the CJM, Ludhiana to decide the application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 60 days from communication of the order, unless there is any legal impediment.

¶1

CWP-12068-2026 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

(119)

¶4

CWP-12068-2026 Date of decision:- 26.05.2026

¶5

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, LUDHIANA AND OTHERS

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

¶10

Present:- Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate for

¶11

Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. ( ORAL )

¶14

This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for issuance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus, directing Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana to decide the application, Annexure P-2, filed by petitioner under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘SARFAESI Act’).

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents No.2 to 5 had availed a loan facility from the petitioner- bank and had mortgaged immovable property. Counsel asserts that due to continuous default in repayment, loan account was classified as NPA on 14.10.2025. A notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was issued on 31.10.2025 (Annexure P-1), followed by a notice under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act dated 19.01.2026, whereafter symbolic possession of the secured asset was taken. Counsel states that petitioner moved an application, Annexure P-2, under Section 14 of

¶16

KAMAL SHARMA 2026.05.27 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

¶17

CWP-12068-2026 -2-

¶18

SARFAESI Act in February, 2026 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, which is still pending. Counsel has made a reference to the statutory provisions and has urged that the application has to be decided within the time frame provided in the statute.

¶19

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

In view of the observations of this Court in Bank of Maharashtra vs. District Magistrate, Hisar and others, 2024(2) PLR 346 as well as in IIFL Home Finance Limited vs. State of Haryana and others , Law Finder Doc ID #2875322 , writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana to decide the application, Annexure P-2 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of copy of this order, unless there is any legal impediment in doing so.

¶21

(SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE

¶22

( VIKAS SURI ) JUDGE

¶23

26.05.2026 Kamal

¶24

Whether Speaking/Reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶25

KAMAL SHARMA 2026.05.27 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

Au Small Finance Bank Limited v. the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Au Small Finance Bank Limited v. the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Au Small Finance Bank Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Hukam Singh and Anr. Vs Chandigarh Housing Board and Anr.

Papan and Anr. Vs the Advisor to the Administrator Cum Chairman and Anr.

Yushutosh and Another Vs Authorised Officer Edelweiss Asets Reconstruction Company Ltd. and Others

Ajay Jain Vs Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Hsvp and Another

Amit Jain Vs Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradikaran Hsvp and Nother