JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)

The guarantor has challenged the securitisation proceedings initiated by the respondent-Bank which is on the basis of a loan which was in favour of M/s Swami Vivekanand Educational and Charitable Trust to the tune of Rs. 16.75 crores.

2. The said loanee is not a party in the present said proceedings. During the pendency of the proceedings, sale certificate dated 25.02.2022 whereby property was sold in favour of one M/s VKS Hytech Pvt. Ltd. was placed on record on 05.12.2022 and counsel was directed to implead the auction purchaser as a respondent party by filing an appropriate application.

3. In pursuance to that order an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC read with Rule 32 of Part-F, Chapter 4, Volume V of the Rules and Orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court read with section 151 CPC (CM-19292-CWP-2022) has been filed for amendment of the writ petition, wherein the said auction purchaser has been arraigned as respondent No. 3.

4. Resultantly, the earlier application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC (CM-3914-CWP-2023) has been rendered infructuous.

5. A perusal of the amended writ petition would also now go on to show that the sale certificate of Rs. 85,00,000/- has been issued in favour of the said auction purchaser of the property which was mortgaged and the formal sale is also endorsed by the Sub-Registrar on 26.07.2022.

6. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that it is not for the Writ Court to exercise its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, in view of the huge outstanding as the bank is only seeking to recover the same, especially keeping in view the law laid down in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others , (2010) 8 SCC 110 . The principles laid down in the said case were also arising out of the proceedings of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and resultantly discussing the law in detail it was held that as under:-

27. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.

28. Insofar as this case is concerned, we are convinced that the High Court was not at all justified in injuncting the appellant from taking action in furtherance of notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Act.

29. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Since the respondent has not appeared to contest the appeal, the costs are made easy."

7. In Union Bank of India and another v. Panchanan Subudhi , (2010) 15 SCC 552 , the High Court had disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs in installments for liquidating the dues of the appellant-Bank and proceedings were pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Bank had issued notices under Section 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the Securitization and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and even the recovery amount had been quantified by the Tribunal. Resultantly, the High Court had been approached, which had directed that the amount be paid in installments. Thereafter, the appeal had been filed before the Apex Court, wherein it