IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 707 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.05.2011 Gurmit Singh Dhillon ...Petitioner Versus Kotak Mohindra Bank Limited ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the respondent. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner had approached this Court seeking quashing of the action of the respondents through invoking the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The property of the petitioner was sealed/locked and, accordingly, the petitioner had sought the writ in the nature of mandamus. It is for the Bank to de- seal and unlock the property, which is residential house of the petitioner. Notice of motion was issued. On 05.02.2010, the counsel for the petitioner made a statement before the Court that he will bring demand draft of another sum of ` 5 lakhs and would deposit the same with the Bank by the next date of hearing. On the basis of this undertaking, the Bank is directed to de-lock the premises. Then the amount was deposited and, accordingly, the directions of this Court was complied with to de-lock the premises. The counsel for the Civil Writ Petition No. 707 of 2010 -2- petitioner then made a statement on 08.04.2010 that demand draft of ` 6,20,000/- plus 50% of ` 2,43,000/- on account of expenses as claimed by the respondent-Bank shall be produced on the next date of hearing. Complying with these instructions, the petitioner brought the demand draft amounting to ` 7,41,500/-, which was accepted by the respondent in the court. The case has thereafter been kept for arguments. Counsel for the petitioner today points out that the he is ready to sit with the Bank to sort out the issue finally and forever. It seems for the petitioner has done well to discharge the liability. The Bank should show some consideration to the petitioner and settle with him amicably to end the litigation. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed. In case of any grievance, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum. May 25, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE