Randhir Singh vs Csl Finance Limited And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

(125) CWP-27538-2026
DATE OF DECISION: 02.11.2026
Randhir Singh .............Petitioner
VERSUS
CSL Finance Limited and another ........Respondents
CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVINDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
*
Present Ms. Amarjit Kaur, Advocate, (through VC)
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anuj Diwan, Advocate, for respondents.
*
PRAVINDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
CM-18333-CWP-2026
The present application is for preponment of the date of hearing
from 07.10.2026 to any date before 29.09.2026.
Since the main case is fixed today, therefore, present application
has been rendered infructuous and is dismissed as such.
MAMTA
2026.11.04 14:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27538-2026 2
CM-17197-CWP-2026
The present application is for placing on record the possession
notice dated 29.08.2026 (Annexure A-1), received by the applicant-
petitioner during the pendency of the petition.
Allowed, as prayed for.
Possession notice dated 29.08.2026 (Annexure A-1) is taken on
record, subject to all just exceptions.
CWP-27538-2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari
by petitioner, a borrower, seeking quashing of the demand notice dated
18.06.2026 (Annexure P-7) issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002 (for short, 'SARFAESI Act').
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner availed a loan of
₹
5,00,000/- from respondent-CSL Finance Limited under agreement dated
₹
28.02.2018, repayable in 60 monthly instalments of 14,096/- each, carrying
interest at 23% per annum. Chander Shekhar, son of the petitioner and
Lokesh Kumari are the co-borrowers in the said loan. The loan was secured
by mortgage of the petitioner's residential house measuring 299 square
yards, situated within Abadi Deh ( Lal Lakir ) of Village Khajuri, Tehsil
Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. Subsequently, the loan account was
classified as a non-performing asset on 04.04.2019 owing to default in
MAMTA
2026.11.04 14:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27538-2026 3
repayment. Thereafter, the respondents issued the demand notice dated
18.06.2026 (Annexure P-7) under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,
calling upon the borrowers to discharge the outstanding liability of
₹
21,55,689/- within 60 days. During pendency of this petition, the
respondents issued a possession notice dated 29.08.2026 (Annexure A-1)
under Section 13(4) of ‘SARFAESI Act’ read with Rule 8(1) of the Security
Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, recording that symbolic possession of
the said mortgaged property had been taken on that date i.e 29.08.2026.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the entire loan
liability stood discharged in December 2020, but the payments made have
not been duly credited. The demand is also questioned on the grounds of
limitation, excessive interest and charges, and non-supply of the complete
loan record. Reliance is also placed upon dismissal for non-prosecution of
the earlier complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881, on 27.05.2024 (Annexure P-2), and dismissal of the execution
proceedings vide order dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) arising from the
arbitral award dated 06.07.2020.
4. Upon advance notice, Mr. Anuj Diwan, Advocate, puts in
appearance on behalf of respondents.
5. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents submits that
CSL Finance Limited is an RBI-registered non-banking financial company
engaged in advancing secured loans. The borrowers defaulted in repayment
and failed to discharge the outstanding liability despite issuance of the
MAMTA
2026.11.04 14:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27538-2026 4
demand notice under Section 13(2) of the ‘SARFAESI Act’, necessitating
enforcement of the mortgage under the Act. It is further submitted that the
present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the efficacious alternative
remedy available to the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for
short ‘Tribunal’) under Section 17 of the ‘SARFAESI Act’.
6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
respondents, on instructions, had offered that they would be ready to settle
the matter if the petitioner is ready to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as one
time settlement (lump sum). As per notice issued on 18.06.2026 (Annexure
P-7) under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, total outstanding amount was
Rs.21,55,689/-. However, same was not agreeable to the petitioner. Counsel
for the petitioner, on instructions, was only offering a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
in six months. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner expresses her
intention to withdraw the present petition. However, consequently
proceeded to argue the matter on merits.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record very carefully.
8. In Phoenix ARC Private Limited v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya
Mandir and others, (2022) 5 SCC 345 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court
emphasized on the statutory remedy available under Section 17 of the Act.
The relevant part thereof, reads as under:
18
" . Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that a
writ petition against the private financial institution
MAMTA
2026.11.04 14:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27538-2026 5
-ARC- the appellant herein under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India against the proposed action/actions
under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act can be said to
be not maintainable. In the present case, the ARC
proposed to take action/actions under the SARFAESI Act
to recover the borrowed amount as a secured creditor.
The ARC as such cannot be said to be performing public
functions which are normally expected to be performed
by the State authorities. During the course of a
commercial transaction and under the contract, the
bank/ARC lent the money to the borrowers herein and
therefore the said activity of the bank/ARC cannot be said
to be as performing a public function which is normally
expected to be performed by the State authorities. If
proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or
any proposed action is to be taken and the borrower is
aggrieved by any of the actions of the private
bank/bank/ARC, borrower has to avail the remedy under
the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would lie and/or
is maintainable and/or entertainable. Therefore,
decisions of this Court in Praga Tools Corpn. And
Ramesh Ahluwalia relied upon by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the borrowers are not of any
assistance to the borrowers.
21
. Applying the law laid down by this Court in Mathew

K.C. to the facts on hand, we are of the opinion that
filing of the writ petitions by the borrowers before the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
is an abuse of process of the court. The writ petitions
have been filed against the proposed action to be taken
MAMTA
2026.11.04 14:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27538-2026 6
under Section 13(4). As observed hereinabove, even
assuming that the communication dated 13-8-2015 was a
notice under Section 13(4), in that case also, in view of
the statutory, efficacious remedy available by way of
appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the High
Court ought not to have entertained the writ petitions.
Even the impugned orders passed by the High Court
directing to maintain the status quo with respect to the
possession of the secured properties on payment of Rs 1
crore only (in all Rs 3 crores) is absolutely unjustifiable.
The dues are to the extent of approximately Rs 117
crores. The ad interim relief has been continued since
2015 and the secured creditor is deprived of proceeding
further with the action under the SARFAESI Act. Filing of
the writ petition by the borrowers before the High Court
is nothing but an abuse of process of court. It appears
that the High Court has initially granted an ex parte ad
interim order mechanically and without assigning any
reasons. The High Court ought to have appreciated that
by passing such an interim order, the rights of the
secured creditor to recover the amount due and payable
have been seriously prejudiced. The secured creditor
and/or its assignor have a right to recover the amount
due and payable to it from the borrowers. The stay
granted by the High Court would have serious adverse
impact on the financial health of the secured
creditor/assignor. Therefore, the High Court should have
been extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its
discretion while granting stay in such matters. In these
circumstances, the proceedings before the High Court
deserve to be dismissed."
MAMTA
2026.11.04 14:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27538-2026 7
9. The present petition was instituted against the demand notice
under Section 13(2) of the ‘SARFAESI Act’ before any measure under
Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act had been taken. However, symbolic
possession of the secured property has since been taken, entitling the
petitioner to invoke the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI
Act. The objections concerning repayment, computation of dues and
limitation require examination of the loan record and can be adjudicated by
the Tribunal. Dismissal of the earlier proceedings for non-prosecution does
not, by itself, establish discharge of the loan liability.
10. As a consequence, no exceptional circumstance warranting
interference in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. The
petitioner has approached this Court without availing the statutory remedy
before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. All questions
on merits are left open.

(PRAVINDRA SINGH CHAUHAN) (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
JUDGE JUDGE
02.11.2026
mamta
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MAMTA
2026.11.04 14:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document