Authum Investment Infrastructure Limited v. Additional District Magistrate, Patiala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19610-2026 Date of Decision:- 02.07.2026 AUTHUM INVESTMENT INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATIALA

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY

Present:

Mr. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. * * * * SANJIV BERRY , J.

1.

The present writ petition has been filed by petitioner aggrieved by non-execution of the order dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by Additional District Magistrate, Patiala, under the provisions of Section 14 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act for brevity). 2.

It is rather surprising that the concerned Officers have failed to discharge their statutory duty of assisting and handing over physical possession of the secured asset to the petitioner-financial institution. 3.

Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) are a huge burden on the public exchequer, banking and financial system, and, thus, prompt enforcement of recovery mechanism under the SARFAESI Act is paramount for liquidity in the system.

4.

In view of the above, this Court by way of writ of mandamus directs Respondents No.2 and 3 to provide all necessary assistance including police help etc., to the District Revenue Officer-cum-Nodal Officer and to execute the order dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed under Section 14 of SANDAL SHARMA 2026.07.03 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-19610-2026 -2SARFAESI Act by handing over physical possession of the secured asset to the petitioner-financial institution as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of 30 days. The petitioner-financial institution, thereafter, can proceed to adopt all possible legitimate means to liquidate the secured asset to recover the due amount.

5.

The petition for the time being stands disposed of in the terms aforesaid. Needless to say that the guidelines laid down by Coordinate Bench in Bank of Maharashtra Vs. District Magistrate, Hisar And Others [CWP-70182022 decided on 28.05.2024] be adhered to by the concerned authorities. 6.

We hasten to add that this order shall however be subject to any restraint/interim/final order which may have been passed by any judicial forum, in favour of the borrowers/ guarantor/ any aggrieved person, who is party to this lis.

7.

Respondents No. 3 is directed to file a compliance report before the Registry of this Court within 45 days from the date of passing of this order. The Registry shall ensure that, in case any deficiency is found in the compliance report so filed, the matter be placed before the appropriate Bench on the judicial side under IOIN category.

8.

Needless to clarify that this order shall not come in way of any party aggrieved by any recourse/action taken under SARFAESI Act to avail appropriate remedy before DRT/DRAT as per law. (SANJIV BERRY) (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI) JUDGE JUDGE 02.07.2026 S.Sharma i) Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No ii) Whether reportable?

Yes/No SANDAL SHARMA 2026.07.03 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment