IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21710 of 2010 Date of Decision : December 06 , 2010. Baljinder Singh .....Petitioner versus The Oriental Bank of Commerce .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Anil Chawla, 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 is aggrieved by the Possession Notice dated 19.11.2010 (Annexure P-6) issued under Section 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2002 Act'). In response thereto, the petitioner has already submitted his reply/representation dated 27.11.2010 (Annexure P-7). It is averred that the petitioner has applied for One Time Settlement and has deposited certain amount for regularization of his account. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that if the offer given by the petitioner and/or his C.W.P.No .21710 of 2010 2 objections do not find favour with the respondent-bank and if any further measure in terms of Section 13 (4) of the 2002 Act is taken, the petitioner has got an efficacious alternative remedy to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the 2002 Act. Keeping in view the fact that the `secured asset' is a residential house and the petitioner has already applied to the bank for regularization of his account, the writ petition is disposed of by relegating the petitioner to the afore-stated alternative effective remedy. However, till the bank takes a final decision on the offer given by the petitioner, his dispossession from the afore-stated residential house shall remain stayed. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. December 06, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE