Affirming the settled position that writ jurisdiction will not be exercised in disputes relating to bank recovery when the borrower has not availed the alternate statutory forum under the SARFAESI Act, the High Court summarily dismissed the challenge to the bank’s sale and possession notices. The judgment strictly upholds the precedent requiring exhaustion of alternative remedy, reinforcing the controlling doctrine for all matters governed by the SARFAESI Act.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/29252/2025 of MANMOHAN SINGH MANGAT AND ANOTHER Vs PUNJAB AND SIND BANK |
| CNR | PHHC011567562025 |
| Date of Registration | 25-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | SANJIV BERRY, JUDGE |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA |
| Bench | SHEEL NAGU, C.J.; SANJIV BERRY, J. |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on writ maintainability against SARFAESI proceedings when statutory remedy exists |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing doctrine on writ jurisdiction vis-à-vis alternative statutory remedy |
| Type of Law | Civil remedy (Banking, Recovery of Debts, SARFAESI Act) |
| Questions of Law | Whether the writ court should entertain petitions challenging bank recovery actions without exhaustion of alternative statutory remedy? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition challenging sale and possession notices issued under Recovery proceedings as the petitioners had an adequate alternate statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The petitioners could not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances justifying exercise of writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the High Court maintained the established principle that when an effective alternate remedy is available, especially under a statutory scheme such as SARFAESI, the writ jurisdiction will not be exercised. The petition was thus dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to approach the DRT. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioners, being borrowers, challenged the bank’s sale notice dated 29.05.2025 and the symbolic possession notice dated 25.04.2024 regarding recovery of dues amounting to Rs. 58,42,284/-. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana; authoritative for rejection of writs against SARFAESI actions |
| Persuasive For | May be cited as persuasive in other High Courts and the Supreme Court |
| Follows | Follows established law requiring exhaustion of alternative statutory remedies under SARFAESI/DRT |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Re-emphasizes that High Courts will summarily dismiss writ petitions against bank recovery proceedings if alternative remedy before the DRT is not exhausted.
- Affirms no exception unless special circumstances are demonstrated; counsel should be prepared to show such circumstances or approach DRT first.
- Petitioners are explicitly granted liberty to pursue the alternative remedy, ensuring no prejudice if DRT route is later adopted.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that the petitioners were unable to demonstrate any “special circumstances” that would justify the High Court in bypassing the statutory remedy provided by the SARFAESI Act.
- The bench applied the consistently upheld rule that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked when an equally efficacious statutory remedy (i.e., approach to the Debt Recovery Tribunal) is available to the aggrieved party.
- The court therefore declined to entertain the petition on merits and dismissed it, making clear the petitioners’ liberty to seek recourse before the appropriate forum.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Challenged the sale notice dated 29.05.2025 and symbolic possession notice dated 25.04.2024 issued by the bank.
- No specific “special circumstances” cited to justify writ intervention despite the statutory alternative.
Respondent (Punjab and Sind Bank)
- Asserted (by implication from context) the availability of alternate remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal as basis for non-maintainability.
- Specific arguments in text not detailed.
Factual Background
The petitioners are borrowers who challenged the bank’s sale notice (dated 29.05.2025) and symbolic possession notice (dated 25.04.2024) issued for recovery of outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 58,42,284/-. The challenge was brought directly before the High Court, without first approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal as prescribed under the SARFAESI Act.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment turns on the statutory scheme providing an alternative remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act. The Court reaffirmed the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when the statute provides a dedicated mechanism for redress.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions; both judges concurred in the order.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines indicated in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision strictly affirms and applies the existing rule requiring alternative statutory remedy exhaustion before entertaining writs against SARFAESI actions.