IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3339 of 2009 Date of decision: March 3, 2009. M/s Shiva Cold Store & Ice Factory ...Petitioner(s) v. Punjab Financial Corporation ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 26.3.2007 (Annexure P-1) whereby the One-Time Settlement (OTS) arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation has been cancelled. Challenge to the demand notice dated 28.1.2009, asking the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.29,760/-, has also been made. Besides this, the petitioner seeks refund of a sum of Rs.14.5 lacs, along with interest, paid by it to the respondent-Corporation on 10.12.2008. The petitioner was advanced a loan of Rs.50 lacs by the respondent-Corporation on 15.5.1998. The petitioner having defaulted in repayment, OTS was arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent- Corporation in the year 2003. The petitioner though deposited 10% of the OTS amount, however, the balance settled amount of Rs.42.05 lacs was not deposited by it within the stipulated period of 21 months. It was thereafter that the respondent-Corporation issued the impugned letter dated 26.3.2007 (Annexure P-1), cancelling the OTS. As the facts would speak for themselves, prima-facie, no fault can be found with the Corporation as it is the petitioner who failed to avail the benefit of the OTS. The petitioner thereafter has paid a sum of Rs.14.50 lacs to the respondent-Corporation on 10.12.2008 though, the respondent-Corporation has further demanded a sum of Rs.29,760/- towards full and final settlement of the accounts. After paying Rs.14.50 lacs, that the petitioner has now approached this Court challenging the additional demand of Rs.29,760/- and seeking the refund of Rs.14.50 lacs on the solitary ground that the said amount was recovered by the Corporation forcibly, under threat and by using coercive means. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I am satisfied that the allegations of threat or use of coercive means or force by the authorities is a seriously disputed question of fact which cannot be effectively settled by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. The petitioner may, if so advised, file a civil suit. March 3, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge