IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 12665 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 11th October, 2010. Harivansh Arora & Anr. Petitioners through Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner seeks quashing of the notice dated 20.12.2008 [Annexure P-1] issued under Section 13[4] of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 vide which the respondents have taken symbolic possession of the property of petitioner No.1. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that a sum of `One lac has already been deposited with the respondent Bank, leaving the balance of `1,04,600/- only. No one appears on behalf of the respondents despite service. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and considering the fact that a substantial part of the loan amount has already been paid and the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the balance amount also within some reasonable period, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the proceedings initiated under the Act vide notice dated 20.12.2008 [ Annexure P-1 ] are ordered to be kept in abeyance, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall deposit the balance loan amount on or before 31.01.2011. However, in the event of their failure, the respondent Bank shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners, in accordance with law. Disposed of. Dasti. October 11, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE