C.W.P. No.5427 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.5427 of 2009 Date of Decision: 07.01.2010 Surjit Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus Standard Chartered Bank, through its Branch Manager ....Respondent Present: Mr. N.G. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition seeks for a mandamus to direct the respondent not to take coercive steps for recovery of the amount. This Court while ordering notice on 02.04.2009 directed that subject to petitioners' depositing the entire dues, no coercive action should be taken against the petitioners. 2. The right of enforcement of the debt is secured through the enactment viz., under the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. There cannot be blanket prayer for mandamus not to apply a C.W.P. No.5427 of 2009 -2- coercive process and if any financial institution is doing an act, which is contrary to the Act, it will be always open for a borrower to take up such objections as provided under the Act itself. The various provisions under the Act, which were put to challenge in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Vs. Lemiar of India (2004) 4 SCC 311 upheld the provisions of the Act. In a further challenge made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court detailing the procedure to be followed for recovery, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Act is a complete Code in itself and any person aggrieved by the decision of the financial institution in the matter of dispute under Section 13(2) or the matter of delivery of possession under Section 13(4) of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, would have a right of appeal, as provided under Section 17 of the Act. The resort to a writ petition itself is misconceived and the petitioner cannot have any remedy before this Court. It will be always open to the petitioner to resist any action of coercive process, if no amount is due and payable by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners will be willing to make a one time payment and discharge their loans. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent also gives an undertaking on behalf of the Bank that they will consider any such proposal, if it comes through a bona C.W.P. No.5427 of 2009 -3- fide offer from the petitioner. No further directions may be necessary in that regard, having regard to the respective undertaking given by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank. 4. Subject to this liberty to take such objections, as may be legally feasible, the petitioners' writ petition ought to fail and it is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 07, 2010 Pankaj*