IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 528 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 11, 2011 M/s Goodluck Impex (P) Ltd. …Appellant Versus Union of India and another …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTI . JUSTI . JUSTI . JUSTICE CE CE CE GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Alok Jagga, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR, J.J.J.J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against judgment dated 15.12.2010 rendered by the learned Single relegating the appellant to avail the statutory remedy of appeal provided by Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). The basic reason for the aforesaid view taken by the learned Single Judge is that after filing of the writ petition, a notice under Section 13(4) of the Act has been issued to the appellant. 2. Against the notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Act, a remedy of appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, under Section 17 of the Act, has been provided. 3. Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant has LPA No. 528 of 2011 (O&M) 2 argued that his prayer in the writ petition was merely to return the documents which have been kept by the respondents. He further submitted that merely because a remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act has been provided, would not exclude exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. Mr. Alok Jagga, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, however, submitted that it is not a question of merely returning the documents. The petitioner-appellant has to pay huge amount to the respondent Bank. The notice under Section 13(4) of the Act has been issued for that purpose. 5. In view of the above, we are of the firm opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting admission of the appeal. There is a serious dispute between the parties with regard to payment of huge amount. On the one hand the respondent Bank is complaining that the petitioner-appellant has already made recovery from foreign buyers to whom they have exported the goods and on the other hand the petitioner-appellant claims that all the bills of the foreign consumers have been endorsed to the bank. Accordingly, they were required to effect recovery of the dues from foreign consumers. Be that as it may, once admittedly a notice under Section 13(4) of the Act has been issued then statutory remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act is provided and the petitioner- appellant has to avail the same. In view of the fact that interim order of stay has been continuing in favour of the petitioner- appellant w.e.f. 18.3.2011, we direct that the petitioner-appellant may file the appeal within 30 days from today and the stay order shall continue to operate for a period of 30 days. The Tribunal shall LPA No. 528 of 2011 (O&M) 3 decide the appeal of the petitioner-appellant as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such appeal. 6. The instant appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH) July 11, July 11, July 11, July 11, 2011 2011 2011 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE PKapoor