Jagtar Singh vs Satin Housing Finance Limited & Ors.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction for quashing/setting aside the impugned sale/auction notice dated 25.03.2026 (Annexure P-12) whereby the date of auction of the mortgaged property/land (details given in Para No.2) is mentioned as 29.05.2026 being arbitrary and illegal on the part of respondents as the said matter is already sub judice before learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh in S.A. No.3 of 2026 and stay application filed before the DRT has not yet been decided.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter was earlier referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for an amicable settlement, however, the mediation proceedings have failed. He further submitted that independent of the mediation proceedings, settlement talks are ongoing and the parties have arrived at a settlement outside the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. He also submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a Securitization Application before learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh, which is still pending. He further submitted that after possession of the secured asset was taken, the same was released by respondent No.1-Finance Company in favour of the petitioner upon deposit of an amount of 12 lakhs by him.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/Finance Company submitted that he is not in a position to make any statement as to whether respondent No.1 would be able to regularize the account of the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid deposit made by the petitioner or not.

We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

There is no dispute that the present petitioner, who is the borrower, has already filed a Securitization Application before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh which is admittedly pending consideration. An amount of 12 lacs has been paid to the respondents as per the learned counsel for the petitioner and the mediation proceedings have also failed. We are of the considered view that the petitioner could not have filed the present writ petition as a parallel proceeding inasmuch as the Securitization Application of the petitioner, arising out of the same cause of action, is already pending before learned DRT-II, Chandigarh, seeking action against respondent No.1 with respect to the measures taken under the SARFAESI Act. It is a settled law that parallel jurisdiction cannot be exercised.

Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.