Paramjit Kaur And ORS. v. Union Bank Of India And ANR.

CWP-13901-2022 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-13901-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.11.2025 PARAMJIT KAUR AND ORS.

....Petitioners

Versus

UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.

...Respondents

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

Present:

Mr. Gautam Diwan, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate (Arguing counsel) Mr. Teginder Singh, Advocate for the respondents-Bank.

***** SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioners, who are borrowers, have approached this Court challenging notice dated 26.05.2022 (Annexure P-6) u/s 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act), on various grounds. 2.

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).

3.

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 2025.11.12 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-13901-2022 (O&M) and thereafter, before DRAT.

4.

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. 5.

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.

6.

On the face of fact, earlier interim order was granted on 13.07.2022 but the same was not continued till the next date of hearing i.e.05.05.2023, and therefore for the time being, there is no interim protection granted to the petitioners.

7.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty without commenting on merits, without cost. 8.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE (SANJIV BERRY) 11.11.2025 JUDGE mohit goyal Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No MOHIT GOYAL 2025.11.12 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document