IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.23391 of 2010 Date of Decision : December 24, 2010. Pardeep Kumar and another .....Petitioners versus H.D.F.C. Bank Limited .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Ms.Niti Wadhawan, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 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 petitioners are aggrieved by the action taken by the respondent-bank under Section 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2002 Act'). One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners is that though the entire loan amount has already been paid, yet the impugned action has been initiated for wholly arbitrary and malafide reasons. It appears from the impugned notice dated 4.9.2010 (Annexure P-2) that the respondent-bank has raised a demand of Rs.61,38,308.95. In these circumstances, the question of fact as to whether or not the petitioners have already discharged their loan liability, can be C.W.P.No .23391 of 2010 2 dealt with more effectively by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in exercise of its powers under Section 17 of the Act. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by relegating the petitioners to the afore-stated alternative remedy. However, taking into consideration the attending circumstances and the list of the 'secured assets/mortgaged properties', it is directed that the auction may be held but dispossession of the petitioners from the residential houses (mentioned at Sr.Nos.1, 3 and 5 of the impugned notice) shall remain stayed for a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. December 24, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE