IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22584 of 2010 Date of Decision : December 17, 2010. Bhupinder Singh .....Petitioner versus Standard Chartered Bank .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Dheeraj Bali, 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 action taken by the respondent-bank under Section 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2002 Act'). It is stated that given one year period, the petitioner is willing to pay the over due amount as well as the balance instalments regularly. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the writ petition need not be entertained at this stage as ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5990 of 2010 (United Bank of India versus Satyawati Tondon and others), decided on 26.7.2010. The above-stated offer/proposal can be submitted by the C.W.P.No .22584 of 2010 2 petitioner by approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal also. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by relegating the petitioner to the alternative remedy to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. However, with a view to enable the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the residential house/secured assets for a period of one month. From the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. December 17, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE