IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20632 of 2010 Date of Decision : November 19, 2010. M/s Avian Knitcrafts .....Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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 petitioner is aggrieved by the measures taken by the Secured Creditor-Dena Bank under Section 13(2) the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). It is averred that though the respondent Bank is likely to received payment of Rs.42 lacs from the Insurance Company on acceptance of the petitioner's claim, within a period of 10 days, still the petitioner's proprietor is sought to be dispossessed from the only residential house he owns and possesses. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the Supreme Court decision dated 26.7.2010 in Civil Appeal C.W.P.No .20632 of 2010 2 No.5990 of 2010 (United Bank of India versus Satyawati Tondon and others), I am of the considered view that all the pleas taken by the petitioner can be effectively raised by it before the Debts Recovery Tribunal also. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by relegating the petitioner to the afore-stated alternative remedy. However, having regard to the nature of urgency, it is directed that the petitioner's proprietor shall not be dispossessed by the respondents from the residential house for a period of one week. Ordered accordingly. A copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges, during the course of day. November 19, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE