IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11345 of 2009 Date of decision: 09.04.2010 Kulwinder Kaur ….Petitioner versus State Bank of India, SAARC Branch, Zonal Office Fountain Chowk Ludhiana through its Zonal Manager and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: Mr. D.R. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.C.Pathela, Advocate, for the respondents. ----- 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 petitioner challenges notice which is issued under the SARFAESI Act under Section 13(4) after previous notice which was issued under Section 13(2) demanding the amount due to the financial institution and issuing notice for delivery of property. The writ petition has been filed not by a person who had obtained a loan from the Bank but a subsequent encumbrances who claimed that he is poor and that he is prepared to make the payment in instalments. This Court, at the time when it directed notice on 30.07.2009, had directed that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.1,80,000/- with the Bank and the property which had been sold shall be unsealed. At the subsequent hearing, the Court has Civil Writ Petition No.11345 of 2009 - 2 - taken note of the fact that the petitioner could deposit Rs.1,20,000/- and had granted a further reprieve to the petitioner to deposit Rs.60,000/- from the date when the Court passed an order. On a subsequent hearing, the Court has noticed that against Rs.60,000/- as directed , the petitioner deposited only Rs.20,000/- and that amount was directed to be received by the Bank and open the lock put in front of the door of the house of the petitioner. On a subsequent date on 24.09.2009, the Court has observed that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.5,000/- per month and will continue to deposit till the next hearing. The counsel for the petitioner states that he has been continuing to deposit at every hearing and against the total amount of around Rs.7 lakhs, the petitioner had paid about Rs.3 lakhs. 2. This Court cannot be treated as collection agent to grant to the petitioner a right to make payment at his whims to stall the actions under the SARFAESI Act. Any judicial intervention in matters of enforcement of a debt by a financial institution shall stay confined to what the law permits. The Court does not have the power to exercise jurisdiction where there is a clear legislative mandate empowering the financial institution to resort to mechanism provided by statute. The petitioner if he has obtained a benefit through the Court's intervention by munificent orders, the petitioner has come to the end of the tether. The petitioner will have his rights to the extent to which the SARFAESI Act itself provides by an appeal if, he is so advised, under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 3. The continuation of the proceedings before this Court as though it is a pure discretionary jurisdiction that the Court exercises Civil Writ Petition No.11345 of 2009 - 3 - amounts to an abuse of process of law. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.04.2010 sanjeev