M/S Hari Om Handloom vs Eleweiss Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd

CWP-32793-2026 (O&M) -1-
106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-32793-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.10.2026
M/S HARI OM HANDLOOM
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
EDELWEISS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD.
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVINDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
Present:- Dr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate for the respondent.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. The present Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari
for setting aside the impugned order dated 03.07.2026 (Annexure P-5) to the
extent of further adjusting of Rs.5,00,000/- already deposited vide demand draft
dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-3), with a further prayer to direct the respondent
to accept remaining amount of Rs.15,50,000/- instead of Rs.20,50,000/- from
the petitioner in four equal installments towards full and final settlement of loan
liability.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before passing of
the order by the learned DRAT, an amount of Rs.5 lacs stood deposited by the
petitioner with the respondent-Company by way of a demand draft dated
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.11.03 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-32793-2026 (O&M) -2-
27.05.2025, a photocopy of which has been attached along with the present
petition as Annexure P-3. He further submitted that out of the total amount of
Rs.26 lacs, which was so settled between the parties before the learned DRAT,
the aforesaid amount of Rs.5 lacs should be also adjusted.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Harsh Chopra, learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that the filing of the present petition amounts to an abuse
of the process of law in view of the fact that a perusal of the impugned order
passed by the learned DRAT vide Annexure P-5 would show that the
respondent-Company had so stated before the learned DRAT that the total
amount due against the present petitioner as on that date (i.e. the date of passing
of the order by the learned DRAT on 03.07.2026) was Rs.26.58 lacs but the
respondent is ready to settle the account for Rs.26 lacs, if it is to be paid within
five months. He further submitted that before the learned DRAT, learned
counsel for the petitioner had so stated that the pre-deposit of Rs.5.5 lacs, which
was made before the learned DRAT ought to be adjusted and consequently, the
learned DRAT adjusted the aforesaid amount of Rs.5.5 lacs and passed the
necessary directions on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the
parties. He also submitted that as per the impugned order passed by the learned
DRAT vide Annexure P-5, not only was learned counsel for the petitioner
present before the learned DRAT but even the proprietor of the petitioner,
namely, Nagesh Chandra, was also present, as is evident from the aforesaid
order itself and now after having settled the matter before the learned DRAT,
the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, which clearly amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.11.03 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-32793-2026 (O&M) -3-
He submitted that Rs.5 lacs, which the petitioner is now seeking to be adjusted
was deposited with the Bank even prior to the filing of SA before learned DRT.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
5. The impugned order dated 03.07.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by
the learned DRAT, is reproduced as under:-
“The matter is taken up through Hybrid hearing.
1. Sh. Amrendra Kumar Singh, Advocate for the
appellant on instruction from Nagesh Chandra who is
proprietor of the appellant stated that the appellant is ready
to settle with the respondent and to pay the outstanding
balance to be informed by the respondent. Sh. Harsh
Chopra, Advocate for the respondent stated that as per the
statement of account a sum of about Rs.26.58 lacs is due
against the appellant as on today and the respondent is
ready to settle the account for Rs.26 lacs but it is to be paid
within five months. Sh. Amrendra Kumar Singh, the counsel
for the appellant stated that the appellant had deposited
Rs.5.5 lac as pre-deposit and the said amount can be
remitted in favour of the respondent.
2. On the submissions made by both the parties, the
following directions are passed for amicable settlement:
(i) The appellant shall pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.26
lacs towards full and final satisfaction of the outstanding
dues in respect of the loan account bearing no.1813204 as
per the schedule mentioned herein below.
a) The appellant has already made a pre-deposit of
Rs.5.50 lacs and the said amount shall be remitted to
the following account of the respondent immediately.
Registry is directed to do the needful.
Beneficiary Bank Account No. EARH10HARI1004818
Beneficiary Name : EARC TRUST SC -410
Beneficiary Bank : ICICI Bank
IFSC : ICIC0000106 Branch : Delhi
b) The balance amount of Rs.20.50 lacs shall be
paid to the respondent in four equal instalments of
Rs.4 lacs each commencing from August 2026 and
each instalment shall be payable on or before 10th
day of each calendar month. Out of the
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.11.03 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-32793-2026 (O&M) -4-
settlement amount, the balance amount shall be paid
th
as last instalment on or before 10 day of the fifth
month.
(ii) In case the appellant commits any default in the
payment of any instalment as per the above schedule, in that
eventuality, respondent shall be at liberty to proceed in
accordance with law, including action under the SARFAESI
Act.
(iii) The respondent is directed not to take possession of the
subject property bearing House No.35, EWS Weavers
Colony, Panipat, Haryana, measuring 50 sq.yds. However,
the respondent shall be at liberty to take possession of the
subject property in case of single default committed by the
appellant in the payment of settlement amount as per above
schedule.
3. With this direction, the present appeal stands
disposed of.”
6. A perusal of the aforesaid would show that the matter was settled
between the parties before the learned DRAT, wherein initially the respondent-
Company had so stated that a total amount of Rs.26.58 lacs was due against the
petitioner as on that date i.e. the date of passing of the order dated 03.07.2026,
but in order to settle the matter, it was so offered by the respondent-Company
that an amount of Rs.26 lacs can be paid within a period of five months. Rather,
the petitioner specifically stated before the learned DRAT that so far as the pre-
deposit of Rs.5.5 lacs is concerned, the same may be remitted in favour of the
respondent-Company and consequently, the learned DRAT issued directions for
adjusting the aforesaid amount of Rs.5.5 lacs but nowhere did the petitioner
state before the learned DRAT that the initial amount of Rs.5 lacs, which had
been deposited even prior to the filing of the Securitisation Application (SA)
before the respondent-Company and which the petitioner is now seeking to
adjust, should also be adjusted. In other words, a settlement took place before
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.11.03 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.

CWP-32793-2026 (O&M) -5-
the learned DRAT with the consent of both the parties and now the filing of the
present writ petition by the petitioner seeking adjustment of the earlier amount
of Rs.5 lacs, which was stated to have been deposited prior to the filing of the
SA, despite no such request having been made before the learned DRAT, clearly
amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
7. Consequently, the present Civil Writ Petition is dismissed
with costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand). The petitioner is
hereby directed to deposit the aforesaid costs in the Punjab and Haryana High
Court Dispensary Welfare Fund Account No.45115269583, IFSC Code-
SBIN0050306, with the State Bank of India (SBI), Punjab and Haryana High
Court Branch, Chandigarh, within a period of two months from today and
furnish a receipt of the said costs before the Registry of this Court. In case the
aforesaid costs are not deposited by the petitioner within the stipulated period,
then the Registry shall put up this case for compliance purpose so that further
necessary action can be taken in accordance with law, including recovery of the
aforesaid costs as arrears of land revenue.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
JUDGE
( PRAVINDRA SINGH CHAUHAN )
30.10.2026 JUDGE
Chetan Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
CHETAN THAKUR
2026.11.03 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.