CWP No.13701 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.13701 of 2010 Date of Decision: 04.08.2010 **** Harmit Bedi and another . . . . Petitioners VS. Central Bank of India and 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. Jaideep Verma, Advocate for the petitioners ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioners seek quashing of the notice dated 14.09.2009 (Annexure P5) issued by the respondent-Bank under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘the Act’). The primary contention of the petitioners appears to be that the impugned notice is founded upon the money decrees dated 02.12.1992 and 01.02.1994 (Annexure P4 & P3 respectively) passed by the Civil Court, the execution whereof was never sought by the Bank. CWP No.13701 of 2010.doc - 2 – On this premise, it is urged that the action now initiated the Bank is hopelessly time-barred under Section 36 of the 2002 Act as well. (2). Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and keeping in view the fact that the question of limitation is invariably a mixed question of law and it can also be effectively raised under Section 17 of the Act before the learned DRT, the petitioner needs to be relegated to the alternative remedy as available under the law. (3). It appears that the money decrees were passed against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and no step was taken by the Bank to execute the same till 2010. (4). The petitioner’s claim that they were not aware of the previous legal proceedings, also requires determination on facts. If that is so, the petitioners will be at liberty to raise their contentions including of the delay, if any, before the DRT who shall consider the same sympathetically and decide the petitioner’s appeal on merits provided that such an appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order (5). Ordered accordingly. CWP No.13701 of 2010.doc - 3 – (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 04.08.2010 vishal shonkar