Sarabjeet Kaur And ORS v. Managing Director Head Au Small Finance Bank Ltd And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No. 15430 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2025 Sarabjeet Kaur and others .....Petitioners versus Managing Director Head AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. and others .....Respondents





 
 
  


 

  Present :

Mr. Kehar Singh Hissowal, Advocate (Arguing counsel) for the petitioners.

Ms. Deepika Mittal, Advocate (Arguing counsel) for respondent<Bank.

**** 

 
 


The petitioners, who are borrowers, have approached this Court against the impugned letter dated 12.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent Bank requesting the respondent No.4 to hand over possession of the secured asset, pursuant to order passed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act'). 2.

The only ground raised in this petition is that of sympathy and compassionate. Merely on the basis of sympathy and compassionate, no relief can be granted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Ram Lal 2005(2) SCC 638 wherein in para-32, it has been held as under: - RAVINDER KUMAR 2025.07.22 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

 



  [2]
 

  



       

        



    

 

   

 





  







   

!

  



!

"

 ########## $    % &  '() *  + , 

 

 %  -'../)01.2

3 4   



    

    



  

 

    



     

    

!                 $      

    #5   



  6  





   

 1/

   





 $

        !

 

   



! !

   







  

        1711 8 !

 *9  
  

    
  

 

   2  

35 4   

 

  ! !  

   

 

 6 

0



       %      "

   

       

   

 4 3.

Moreover, the petitioners can avail statutory remedy of approaching Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and thereafter Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the said Act of 2002 and therefore, this Court declines interference in the impugned order and extends liberty to the petitioners to avail alternative remedies. 4.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of, without commenting upon the merits of the claim. (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 21.07.2025 ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No RAVINDER KUMAR 2025.07.22 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document