Civil Writ Petition No.10321 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10321 of 2009 Date of decision:17.09.2009. Ms Sarvodya Overseas Village Kheri Nangal Panipat ...Petitioner Versus The D.G.M., Allahabad Bank and another ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr. Lekh Raj Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate, for the respondents. ***** JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL). By filing this writ petition, petitioner has prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued to quash notice dated 17.06.2009 (P-38) issued by the respondent – bank, by invoking the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, `the Act'). Further prayer is to issue directions to the bank not to proceed further with auction of the property, mortgaged by the petitioner, to secure repayment of the loan amount. On 15.07.2009, following order was passed by this Court: - “Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner undertakes that it shall deposit whole of the amount due, from it within a period of three weeks from today. Notice of motion 17.9.2009. In view of statement made, it is directed that sale proceedings of the mortgaged property may continue, Civil Writ Petition No.10321 of 2009 -2- however, sale be not confirmed. The petitioner is directed to approach the bank and on his asking the bank shall give it the details as to how-much amount is due and thereafter it shall pay the same as undertaken within three weeks from today. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to comply with the undertaking given, the writ petition shall be dismissed on the next date of hearing.” Counsel for the petitioner states that after passing of the above said order, the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.4,98,000/- with the bank. He further states that thereafter, the bank has raised a claim for an amount of Rs.7,70,573/-, which, counsel for the petitioner disputed and states that that amount is not recoverable from the petitioner. If that is so, this Court feels that disputed questions cannot be gone into in a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India. Against action taken by the respondent – Bank appeal lies. Notice of motion was issued only with a view to secure interest of the petitioner and also of the bank. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to raise his dispute, regarding alleged excess amount claimed, by the respondent – Bank before the appropriate Forum, as per law. September 17, 2009 (JASBIR SINGH) vinod* JUDGE