------...,..--·------------------"-------------------------·-·---- .... 7, 9 & 10. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3483/2008 WEST COAST PAPER MILLS LTD. & ANR ..... Petitioners UOI & ORS Through Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, Advocate. versus ..... Respondents Through Mr. M.U. Khan, Advocate for PNB. + W.P.(C) 4226/2008 JIWAN KUMAR AHUJA HUF ..... Petitioner Through Mr. D.D. Singh, Advocate. versus U.O.I & ORS ..... Respondents Through Ms. Manjusa Wadhwa & Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocates for respondent No. 1. Mr. M.U. Khan, Advocate for PNB. + W.P.(C) 5290/2008 Ofo SHEIKH MUBASHAR HUSSAIN ..... Petitioner Through Mr. D.D. Singh, Advocate. versus U.O.I & ORS ..... Respondents CORAM: Through Ms. Lata Gangwani, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. M.U. Khan, Advocate for PNB. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA ORDER 29.04.2009 Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he has instructions to withdraw the present writ petition and approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal in terms of Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified -----------------------·-----·-·--- ·--- Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. The interim order passed by this Court will continue for a period of four weeks to enable the petitioners to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that they do not have copy of the notice under Section 13( 4) of the aforesaid Act. Learned counsel for the respondent bank states that copy of the notice will be sent to the counsel for the petitioners by registered post within one week. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that this Court had issued notice in the present writ petition after being prima facie convinced that the writ petition is maintainable. He states that the petitioners are entitled to benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The said contention will be sympathetically examined by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. DASTI. APRIL 29, 2009 VKR,/' /[_.j(L_ KHANNA, J.