IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 17550 of 2010 Date of Decision: 28.9.2010. Kotak Mahindra Bank --Petitioner Versus District Magistrate, Faridabad & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Ms. Jai Shree Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion to respondent no.1 only. Mr. R.D. Sharma, D.A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents. Keeping in view the nature of relief claimed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself. The petitioner is a banking company duly incorporated as such under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is engaged in banking business. One M/s Cityfinancial Consumer Finance India Ltd. advanced a loan of Rs. 12 lacs to the proforma respondents. Subsequently on the basis of an assignment deed dated 31.5.2006 the petitioner-bank has taken over the entire loan. The petitioner initiated proceedings under the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest, 2002. With a view to effectively enforce its right/authority under Section 13 of the aforesaid Act the petitioner approached respondent no.1 under Section 14 of the Act for providing assistance to take the possession of the mortgaged/pledged assets of the borrower. The grievance of the petitioner CWP. No. 17550 of 2010 -2- is that even though an application was made in the month of June, 2009 but respondent no.1 has not performed its obligation in terms of section 14 of the aforesaid Act. This petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondent no.1 to perform its obligation in accordance with section 14 of the aforesaid Act. In view of the limited prayer, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to take decision on the application of the petitioner in accordance with Section 14 of the aforesaid Act within a period of one month from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the said respondent. Needless to say that in the event the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, the same shall be by a reasoned and speaking order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 28.9.2010. lucky