IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 4742 of 2009. Date of Decision: 30th March, 2009. Sandeep Jindal Petitioner through Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate Versus Central Bank of India ...Respondent through Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, 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 notices dated 2.8.2008 and 20.1.2009 purported to have been issued under Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner's prayer is that out of balance loan amount of about Rs. 43 lacs demanded by the respondent Bank, a sum of Rs. 6 lacs has already been deposited by him and he may be granted some reasonable period to pay the entire remaining dues. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondent Bank has filed its reply/affidavit, which is taken on record. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the petitioner's undertaking as also keeping the mitigating circumstances explained during the course of hearing in view, it appears that some reasonable period deserves to be granted to the petitioner to discharge his loan liability. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner clears the outstanding dues on or before 30.06.2009, no action under the 2002 Act shall be taken against him or his guarantors pursuant to the impugned notices or otherwise. However, if the petitioner does not honour his undertaking and fails to discharge the loan liability within the stipulated period, the respondent Bank shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner and his guarantors, in accordance with law. Disposed of. Dasti. March 30, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE