CWP No.20396 of 2010.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.20396 of 2010 Date of Decision: 15.12.2010 **** M/s. Swaraj Mazda Ltd. . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . . 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. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. HS Brar, Addl. AG Punjab Mr. RS Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent-Bank Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.7 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to release the articles/components as per the inventory (Annexure P10 colly), which are allegedly owned by the petitioner-Company and are lying in the premises of respondent No.6&7-Companies. (2). The respondent-Bank has filed its reply/affidavit opposing the petitioner’s prayer and explaining that firstly the possession of the factory premises, being a ‘secured asset’ under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, has to be returned to it and CWP No.20396 of 2010.doc - 2 - thereafter only the process of identifying the articles as claimed by the petitioner can be started. (3). Since respondent No.6&7 have volunteered to restore/hand over the possession of the factory premises to the Bank as per their undertaking given in the connected case i.e. CWP No.18366 of 2010, the Bank’s above-noticed objection has become infructuous. (4). It is pointed out that the inventory of all the articles including raw materials; godown articles; plants and machinery etc. has already been prepared by the Bank in terms of the order dated 8th October, 2010 passed by in CWP No.18366 of 2010. It has accordingly been agreed upon that the representative of the petitioner- industry and the officer(s) of the Bank shall jointly identify the ‘material’ belonging to the petitioner- Company and the same shall be released on furnishing the Bank guarantee equivalent to its value. The Bank guarantee shall be valid for a period of six months. The respondent-Bank shall meanwhile be at liberty to re- verify the genuineness of the petitioner-industry’s claim and if satisfied that the released material was actually owned by the petitioner-industry, in that event, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek discharge/cancellation of the Bank guarantee. CWP No.20396 of 2010.doc - 3 - However, if the material is found to be not belonging to the petitioner and/or the Bank had its first charge thereupon, the respondent-Bank shall be entitled to encash the Bank guarantee to that extent. (5). This arrangement, however, shall be without prejudice to the legal rights of respondent No.7 in the matter pending before the DRT. (6). The needful shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 15.12.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE