HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.11115 of 2010 Date of Decision: 12.11.2010 **** M/s. Tarun Textiles . . . . Petitioner VS. Union of India & 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. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Darshan Bishnoi, Advocate for UOI Mr. Sumit Batra, Advocate for respondents No.2&3 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is said to have submitted the reply/objection(s) to the Notice issued by the respondent-Bank under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘the Act’). (2). It is obvious that the respondent-Bank cannot proceed further and no coercive step under Section 13(4) of the Act can be taken by it without first deciding the objection(s) submitted by the petitioner, by passing a speaking order as mandated under Section 13(3-A) of the Act. (3). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Bank to follow the procedure prescribed under the law before taking any punitive action. (4). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 12.11.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE