HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CM No.397-98 of 2011 in/and CWP No.10927 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.01.2011 **** Dr. Gurinder Singh & Anr. . . . . Petitioners VS. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & 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: Ms. Saloni Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Jai Shree Thakur, Advocate for respondents No.1&2 Mr. RM Suri, Advocate for respondent No.3 ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The respondents have placed on record additional documents along with an affidavit including complete statement of accounts of the loan account of the petitioners and the same is taken on record. (2). It is informed by learned counsel for the respondent- Bank, on instructions, that a sum of Rs.8.75 lacs is still payable by the petitioners as per the settlement though the factum of settlement is disputed by the petitioners. (3). Be that as it may, having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the petitioners’ inclination to settle CWP No.10927 of 2010.doc - 2 – the loan account, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that if the petitioners deposit the amount of Rs.8.75 lacs within a period of four months in two equal instalments, no further action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 shall be taken against them nor any interest for the said period shall be charged. The above-stated amount shall be deposited by the petitioner without prejudice to their legal right to question the rate of interest/penal interest and/or charges said to have been unauthorisedly added by the Bank and for that purpose, the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum. (4). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 14.01.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge