Reiterates that High Courts must refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 in SARFAESI matters where an alternative remedy before DRT/DRAT exists; upholds previous Supreme Court precedent and is binding authority for all SARFAESI litigation before subordinate courts within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/25852/2025 of JATINDER KAUR Vs TEHSILDAR CUM EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, PAYAL |
| CNR | PHHC011397582025 |
| Date of Registration | 29-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice Sandeep Moudgil |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within the jurisdiction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Banking & Finance, SARFAESI, Writ Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether High Courts can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere in proceedings under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, bypassing DRT/DRAT? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The SARFAESI Act provides a complete code and alternate remedies before the DRT/DRAT, and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised where such alternative statutory remedies exist. The approach is reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, Phoenix ARC Pvt Ltd v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, and PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank. The petitioners have not availed themselves of the DRT/DRAT remedies, and thus the High Court must decline jurisdiction. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court dicta emphasizing alternative remedies and the complete code nature of SARFAESI |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners are borrowers against whom possession notice under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act was issued. No approach made to DRT/DRAT. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab & Haryana; applicable in all SARFAESI writs in this jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, DRT, DRAT, national courts |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Re-emphasises that writ petitions challenging SARFAESI proceedings (including notices under Section 14) will not be entertained unless the statutory remedies before DRT/DRAT have been exhausted.
- Petitions filed directly before the High Court without availing DRT/DRAT are liable to be dismissed/disposed without a merits hearing.
- Heavily relies and cites the specific paragraphs from key Supreme Court judgments, enhancing clarity on binding precedent.
- Legal strategy for borrowers must focus on SARFAESI’s internal appellate mechanism rather than invoking writ jurisdiction at the outset.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the Supreme Court’s consistent stance against High Court interference under Article 226 in SARFAESI matters where alternative remedies are available.
- Cited United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (AIR 2010 SC 3413), Phoenix ARC Pvt Ltd v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir [(2022) 5 SCC 345], and PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank [2024 (6) SCC 579], all of which stress that SARFAESI is a complete code providing detailed recovery procedures and appellate remedies.
- The Court determined from pleadings that the petitioners had not approached the DRT.
- On the basis of binding precedent and factual matrix, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition and relegated the petitioners to the alternate statutory forum.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
Approached the High Court against issuance of possession notice under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Respondent
No detailed arguments of respondents are noted in the judgment extract.
Factual Background
The petitioners, as borrowers, challenged the issuance of a notice for handing over possession of a secured asset by the Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The petition was filed directly before the High Court without the petitioners first seeking relief from the Debts Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal under SARFAESI.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court analyzed Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, which pertains to taking possession of secured assets.
- Emphasis was laid upon the hierarchical remedial structure of the SARFAESI Act, which mandates first approaching the DRT and then the DRAT before invoking writ jurisdiction.
- The judgment reiterated the “complete code” nature of SARFAESI regarding mechanisms for redressal and challenge.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are recorded; the order is unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or directives were introduced in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms Supreme Court law that writ jurisdiction will not be exercised in light of alternative remedies under SARFAESI/DRT/DRAT.
Citations
- United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, AIR 2010 SC 3413 (Paras 17, 27)
- Phoenix ARC Private Limited v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, (2022) 5 SCC 345 (Paras 10, 21)
- PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, 2024 (6) SCC 579 (Paras 22–41)