IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.18681 of 2008 Date of decision: March 18, 2009. Virat International Knitwears ...Petitioner(s) v. State Bank of India & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Shri Yogesh Jain, Advocate, for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings initiated under Section 13 of the the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 2002 Act). On 31.10.2008 when the matter came up for preliminary hearing, the motion Bench passed the following order on the statement made on behalf of the petitioner:- “Only prayer pressed by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner be allowed to sell the property of which physical possession has been taken by the respondents and restrain the respondents from taking over other properties. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the property already taken over is sufficient to liquidate the loan. Notice of motion for 6.2.2009. In the meantime, the petitioner is allowed to sell the property of which the possession has been taken, in consultation with th subject to the condition that the amount to the extent of dues of the respondents will be directly paid to the respondent-Bank. The respondent are restrained from taking physical possession of any other property and also from alienating the property of which possession has been taken, subject to the petitioner complying with the undertaking.” Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Bank points out and is not disputed by on behalf of the Petitioner that neither any customer has been brought nor the petitioner has deposited amount towards arrears of loan. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, submits that the property which is in possession of the Bank is worth Rs.2 crores as against total loan liability of Rs.1.75 crores as on day. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction that in case the petitioner is able to abide by his undertaking dated 31.10.2008 on or before 30.4.2009, no action under the 2002 Act shall be taken by the respondent-Bank. However, if the petitioner fails to honour the said undertaking, the respondent-Bank shall be at liberty to dispose of the 'secured asset' so as to recover the loan amount. Dasti March 18, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge