IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15584 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 06, 2010. Mohan Lal .....Petitioner versus Indian Overseas Bank and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Shakti Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the notice dated 23.7.2010 (Annexure P-1) whereby the respondent-bank intends to take possession of the petitioner's shop allegedly without taking any recourse against respondent No.4 to recover the arrears of debt. It appears from the record that the petitioner did raise objections against the notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the 2002 Act'). According to the petitioner, the possession notice under Section 13 (4) of the 2002 Act has been issued by respondent No.1 without deciding his application-cum-objections submitted against the notice under Section 13 (2) of the 2002 Act. It is also averred that the petitioner's C.W.P.No .15584 of 2010 2 objections are based upon a decision of this Court in Smt.Panpori versus Central Bank of India, 2001 (4) RCR (Civil) 399 (P&H). Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that if the petitioner's objections are still pending, the respondent-bank authorities are obligated to dispose of the same and if the same are rejected, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Dasti. September 06, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE