Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay Kumar And Anr vs Idfc First Bank Limited And Anr on 3 November, 2025
202
CWP-3722-2020 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-3722-2020 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.11.2025
SANJAY KUMAR AND ANR ....PETITIONERS
Versus
IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED AND ANR ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY
Present: - None for the petitioners.
Mr. Mohit Sidana, Advocate for
Mr. Abhishek Bhateja, Advocate
for respondents-Bank (through Video Conferencing).
SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners, who are borrowers, have approached this Court challenging impugned order dated 16.01.2020 (Annexure P-5) issued by Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Ludhiana (East), issued u/s 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act), notice dated 20.02.2019 issued u/s 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act (Annexure P-3) and possession notice dated 11.06.2019 and 15.06.2019 (Annexure P-4), 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 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 10-11-2025 20:35:19 ::: 202 CWP-3722-2020 (O&M) 2 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 and/or DRAT.
4. In view of above and the ratio laid down by 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. Interim relief, if granted, in the present petition, shall continue till DRT takes fresh decision on the question of interim relief, provided the petitioners approach DRT within 30 days, failing which the interim relief shall lose its effect. It is made clear that if petitioners approach the Tribunal within the prescribed stipulated time, then this order shall not prejudice the mind of Tribunal while deciding the question of interim 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 10-11-2025 20:35:19 ::: 202 CWP-3722-2020 (O&M) 3 relief, if admissible to the petitioners. We further make it clear that the Tribunal shall decide the request for interim relief strictly on merits of the matter, without being influenced by the fact of petitioners having approached this Court or this Court having passed the present order.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty without commenting on merits, without cost.
8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHEEL NAGU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
03.11.2025 (SANJIV BERRY)
kanika JUDGE
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 10-11-2025 20:35:19 :::