Punjab and Haryana High Court on Maintainability of Writ Petitions in SARFAESI Proceedings.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterated that High Courts should refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters arising under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The Court held that the Act provides a complete statutory mechanism for redressal, including remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). Accordingly, the petitioner was relegated to the DRT to seek appropriate relief, with interim protection to continue until the DRT takes a decision on interim relief.

1. The petitioner, a subsequent purchaser, challenged a notice dated 02.07.2025 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act by the lending institution.
2. The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the action was illegal.
3. The State and financial institution opposed the writ petition, arguing that an alternative statutory remedy was available before the DRT and DRAT.

1. The Court relied upon the rulings of the Supreme Court in:
2. United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) AIR SC 3413;
3. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir & Ors., (2022) 5 SCC 345; and
4. PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank & Ors., (2024) 6 SCC 579.
5. It was observed that the SARFAESI Act is a self-contained code providing a detailed recovery mechanism and appellate structure.
6. The High Court should not entertain writ petitions when statutory remedies under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act are available.
7. Since the petitioner had not approached the DRT, the writ petition was not maintainable.

1. The petitioner was relegated to approach the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act within 30 days from the date of the judgment.
2. If such an application is filed, the DRT shall decide it on merits without dismissing it on the ground of limitation alone.
3. The interim relief granted by the High Court shall continue until the DRT decides on the petitioner’s application for interim relief.
4. The DRT shall decide the matter independently, uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations.
5. The petition was disposed of without costs, and pending applications were also disposed of.

1. Section 13(4), SARFAESI Act, 2002 – Power of secured creditors to take possession of secured assets.
2. Section 17, SARFAESI Act, 2002 – Right to appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
3. Article 226, Constitution of India – Power of High Courts to issue writs.

Citation: 2025:PHHC:xxxxxx (Notified citation number awaited)

Case: Karamjit Kaur v. State of Punjab & Others

Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Berry

Date of Decision: 27 October 2025

Writ Petition (CWP) No.: 18642 of 2025 (O&M)