IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 14615 of 2009 Date of decision: 21.01.2010 Mamta Gupta and another ...Petitioners Versus Punjab National Bank ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. B.S. Makkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Pasricha, advocate for the respondent. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioners, through the present writ petition, are praying for restraining respondent from getting the possession of the secured assets though mortgaged with the Bank and for further restraining the respondent from taking action in regard to notice dated 12.06.2009 (Annexure P-4) and notice dated 04.09.2009 (Annexure P-8). The petitioners had obtained Housing Loan in May, 2005 from the respondent-Bank and had hypothecated their residential house. On 13.08.2008, the respondent-Bank issued notice, calling upon the petitioners to deposit Rs. 5,86,657/- within a period of 15 days. The petitioners submitted their reply and had shown their bona fide reason for non-payment of the loan. The petitioners then sent proposal on 10.03.2009 that they will deposit sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month and, accordingly, repay the entire amount with monthly instalments of Rs. 8000/-. The Bank did not respond. The petitioners had deposited sum of Rs. 20,000/-. The Bank instead issued notice Civil Writ Petition No. 14615 of 2009 -2- under Section 13 (2) of (Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioners voluntarily had deposited sum of Rs. 24,000/- on 22.06.2009 and another sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 22.07.2009. It is noticed that Bank had also agreed to regularize the loan amount and required the petitioner to deposit sum of Rs. 65,200/- within 15 days through communication dated 24.07.2009. The petitioners, in the meantime, had deposited another sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 13.08.2009. The Bank thereafter has issued a notice and so the petitioners are before the Court. Though the counsel appearing for the Bank would raise a plea of jurisdiction for this Court to interfere at that stage at the noticed stage date yet he has fairly stated that the Bank is still prepared to consider the proposal for regularising the loan of the petitioner. The petitioners have been depositing their instalments intermittently as noticed above. Counsel for the petitioners on valid instructions from his client submits that the petitioners are ready to deposit instalment of Rs. 25,000/- per month to discharge the entire liability. The counsel for the Bank after instructions from the Bank has accepted this proposal. The counsel for the parties further agreed that the Bank would wait for taking action qua this loan even if there are two defaults but the petitioners would have to make payment of two instalments during the following months and in addition would also have to show some valid reasons for non-payment. In case, the petitioners this time do not adhere to the schedule as now agreed, the counsel for the Bank prays for granting liberty to take action in Civil Writ Petition No. 14615 of 2009 -3- accordance with law. The arrangement, as agreed, appears fair. The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of, with the direction that the Bank would accept the repayment of the loan amount with monthly instalment of Rs. 25,000/- per month. The petitioner would ensure that there would be no default. In case, for some reason, the petitioners are not able to deposit any instalment he would give advance information to the Bank with the reasons in support thereof. However, the petitioners will have to clear the instalment of both the months. If there is a default, the bank would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The petitioner undertake to clear the entire liability with interest till the date of the payment. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. January 21, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE