M/S Sham Lal And Bros. And Another v. Authorized Officer, Punjab And Sind Bank And Others

 -- 
   
  
 

 

!

"#$%&' &' (  #$#)$* "#$%+'' ( ,-#."

"#$ %+'' (
    

 

   


/00 11  0'  0  ''' 0 20'

 3  
4 0 5   '''0  0
 %  61 '0
014
0
  61 '0
02







  

  !

"""""

02 4' #

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

 / )%$.

.'%.. % ' $ 00  .0 12  ''& 0( 
),#3 ,4 ),)# ( 
)5)+,4 ,6 ),)#( 
-- ,* ),)) .

/ #''$ ''.

12000

 -- )

2 ''/ #0 $  70.

% ),,, 2 0%. ''

0  $    #6
0 .

0''

 %$.

80$''12$.'$ ''

''0.$'.  . '''0 '0 2  ''/ #'''   9 '' .$.$'

0 '.

%$  :'

.

         #- )!    #- 4!          1 ;'90  2 ),,) 1;92!

-

< 0)- ),)) %$'0%  0''( $ .

=' '  

7 '  

 . '

   90'  70.

% ),,,.  ''

0 $%'' ),),.

  '

(  #6
0.

0

 -7- ''

8012   .'0 '% %' ..

. 0 '                / 0   /
!

''$.

  #- )!#- 4!1;92  ( 
),
)5
)+
-,!''''. 0 >.%'''0 ' / 0 /
!' 1;92.

  '.'.

*

?' '% ' 0.

'0' $ '  0  70'  .'/
 1;92  > .0& '. 0$'

@ $ '.'   0      12      $  '$      '''    . 00.

> .0 0'

''.

 % #- )!#- 4!1;92 $   0 '   A.1 .

'' .0  

       .0    .

 '  '  

 --  '/ # / )- '  700% ),,,

;

.  ' 0 ' .'/
-, ## ),),.

%  #- )!''$ .

#- 4!1;92$0   #3 ,4 ),)# (  
),!        ,4 ,6 ),)#

( 
)5)+!,* ),)) ( 
--!

#

    .@  ## ,* ),)# ( 
)#! #- )!$$ @')) ,* ),)# ( 
)4!.

''$.

 #- 4! ( 
)5!

'0'B&     $$$@#+ ),)#.'.'''$.

,* ),)) ( 
--!

+

;0.' ' ' & $. $'(@  '))*  2 ''

$'0 @ 'A1

#51;92'.'$ ''  &  + #

1;92 ),,)0'' ' 00 '$0 B .

A1

(  '

'

 -(- >   '00' 1;92    .

 %  $    '  ))*       2 1   ( . 0    Leelavathi N. and Others vs State of Karnataka and others, 2025 SCC online SC 2253; 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).

0'

'   ' 0 '.'0 #5 1;92 '$' ' &  '

 view of the ratio laid down by Apex Court in the decisions supra, $0%@ 

'))*  

In the light of the above discussion, without commenting on merits, the writ petition stands disposed of relegating the petitioners to avail the appropriate statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act by filing the requisite application before the concerned Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) having jurisdiction and thereafter, if so required, before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).

11.

In case the petitioner prefers an application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act within a period of 30 days from the date of order along with

 -8copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided on its own merits, without being dismissed on limitation alone.

12. Interim relief, so granted, in the present petition, shall continue for a period of 30 days from the date of the order. 13.

Disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. 

02 

01   
0
 

.9 "%+'' (  

!

=%BC DB/ !

=.'C DB/