CWP No.3534 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.3534 of 2009 Date of Decision: 15.12.2010 **** M/s. Goodluck Impex Pvt. Ltd. . . . . Petitioner VS. Union of India & Anr. . . . . . 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? **** Present: Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Alok Jagga, Advocate for respondent No.2 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is aggrieved by the action taken by the respondent-Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘the Act’). (2). One of the issues raised by the petitioner pertains to returning of the original documents/bills by the respondent-bank. (3). In my considered view all those questions revolving around the validity of action taken under Section 13(4) of the Act can also be raised and/or CWP No.3534 of 2009.doc - 2 – are required to be dealt with by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in accordance with law. (4). In the light of the recent Supreme Court decision dated 26.07.2010 in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others, Civil Appeal No.5990 of 2010, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by relegating the petitioner to the efficacious alternative remedy to approach the DRT under Section 17 of the Act. (5). Since the petitioner has been pursuing his remedy before this Court, it is directed that in case it approaches the DRT within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the respondents shall not take any objection of limitation and the matter shall be decided by the Tribunal on merits. The direction to maintain status quo issued on April 2, 2009 shall continue to operate for a period of two months to enable the petitioner to avail its alternative remedy before the DRT and/or seek appropriate interim relief. The Tribunal shall make an endeavour to decide the petitioner’s appeal/application, on merits, as early as possible and preferably within a period of four months from CWP No.3534 of 2009.doc - 3 – the date of filing of such appeal/application by the petitioner. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 15.12.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE