CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3015 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 17, 2011 M/s Guide International (Export Wing), Ludhiana .....Petitioner VERSUS Punjab National Bank, New Delhi and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this petition to seek quashing of the demand notice dated 27.11.2010 issued by the respondent-Bank under Section 30(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. This is a case where the petitioner had entered into an understanding with the Bank where two foreign letters of credit (L.Cs) for import were opened with the Punjab National Bank, Ludhiana. A margin money of 25% of the total value of L.Cs to the tune of `4,91,505/- was debited from the cash credit account of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3015 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: petitioner. This margin money was converted into fixed deposits and the receipts were pledged with the bank. Plea is that essential term of the L.Cs was the inspection of goods, which was to be carried out by the authorised representative at Mumbai. The said representative had informed that the exporter had not produced the goods for examination/inspection at the port of Shipment. The petitioner accordingly informed the Bank on 9.11.1996 that the bills of lading, invoices and packing lists and certificates reportedly were fake and forged by the indentor. These were received from the Bank of the exporter. The respondent-Bank had accordingly sent a message to the collecting bank. Thereafter, repeated requests to discharge the margin money were made but the respondent-Bank failed to do the same. The Bank had continued to charge interest @ 19.75% per annum, debiting the cash credit account of the petitioner. Against this action, the petitioner has filed a civil suit, where ad-interim injunction in favour of the petitioner has been granted. This injunction is still continuing. The Bank has now issued the impugned demand notice, raising a demand of `37,31,570/- in respect of cash credit limit. The account has accordingly been classified as Non-Performing Assets. The Bank has not permitted the continuation of credit facilities. The restriction in regard to right of the petitioner to transfer by way of sale or lease the property, which are pledged and mortgaged with the bank has also been issued. This is stated to be without jurisdiction, for which the present petition has been filed. Against the action taken by the Bank, the petitioner would have an adequate remedy to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3015 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: The petitioner will be well within its right to point out that action by the respondent-Bank is without jurisdiction. Since the petitioner has already invoked the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, where an ad-interim injunction is granted in his favour, it would not be a fit case to invoke writ jurisdiction to interfere in this matter. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. February 17, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE