IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 723 of 2009. Date of Decision: 24th March, 2009. M/s Sethi Tent House ....Petitioner through Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate Versus United Bank of India & Anr. ..Respondents through Mr. Alok Jagga, Advocate. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the notices dated 6.8.2008 and 25.12.2008 [Annexures P-11 and P-15] whereby proceedings under Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security and Interest Act, 2002 have been initiated and its immovable property mortgaged as a 'secured asset' is being put to auction for recovery of over Rs.55 lacs. The loan liability has arisen on account of the petitioner's Cash-Credit Limit having been declared Non-Performance Account. The petitioner who used to run a Tent-House, is stated to have lost its entire business in a devastating fire. On 9.3.2009, the following order was passed:- “The petitioner seeks quashing of the notices dated 6.8.2008 and 25.12.2008 [Annexures P-11 and P-15] issued by the respondent Bank under Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The aforesaid proceedings have been initiated as the petitioner has defaulted in payment of various installments. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to regularize the loan account by depositing the defaulted installments and thereafter he undertakes to keep on paying the installments regularly. He further submits that though the respondent Bank has already sufficient secured assets as security for the loan, however, if the Bank is still dis- satisfied, the petitioner shall create mortgage in respect of some other immovable property for that purpose. Learned counsel further undertakes to withdraw those cases wherein no relief has been sought against the respondent Bank. As prayed for by learned counsel for the respondent Bank to enable him to have instructions, adjourned to 24.3.2009”. In deference thereto, learned counsel for the respondent Bank expresses his inability to regularise the petitioner's account as according to him, it is not acceptable to the respondent Bank to recover the arrears of loan in quarterly installments. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the total loan liability coupled with the fact that the petitioner has admittedly lost its business in fire that engulfed the tent house, I am of the considered view that some reasonable period deserves to be granted to it to discharge its loan liability. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that no action under Section 13 of the Act shall be taken against the petitioner till 31.3.2010, provided that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 10 lacs on or before 31.5.2009, followed by another payment of Rs.10 lacs by 30.9.2009 and then third installment of Rs.10 lacs by 31.12.2009. The balance amount, if any, shall thereafter be paid by it on or before 31.3.2010. Disposed of. March 24, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE