Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SHEEL NAGU, CJ, SANJIV BERRY, J
M/s Brar Pesticides – Appellant
Versus
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Rania and others – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction under article 226 (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. importance of drt remedies (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. writ petition outcome (Para 8) |
SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral )
1. Challenge in this petition is to notice dated 09.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) and 01.09.2025 (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent - Bank under Section 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘SARFAESI Act’) as well as order dated 20.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed under Section
14 of SARFAESI Act.
2. This Court, vide interim order dated 24.09.2025, had protected the petitioner by restraining respondent - Bank from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner.
3. 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 is a complete code, which not only provides for a detailed recovery mechanism but also remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and thereafter, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).
4. The petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court as to why alternative statutory remed
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
