CWP No.13900 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.13900 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.08.2011 Sh. Anup Chatterjee and others ... Petitioners Versus Oriental Bank of Commerce and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. A.P.S. Shergill, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Anand, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.4. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) The order in challenge is one order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by a Magistrate taking possession of the property. The counsel seeks to contend that the Bank would not disclose the accounts but possession of the property be resorted to under the provision of SARFAESI Act in an unjustified manner. It appears that in respect of the very same subject matter, he had filed CWP No.12242 of 2009 and it was disposed of on 04.08.2010, recording the fact that the petitioner had already filed an appeal CWP No.13900 of 2010 (O&M) [2] before DRT, Delhi and gave interim protection to him for a month to obtain interim orders before DRT. There was a disputed question whether the security over the property for the loan obtained had fully discharged, in view of the contention specifically taken that one of the petitioners who was also incidentally a Director of Bar Trend Global (P) Ltd. offered the said property as collateral security for certain CC limits enjoyed by the company with the Bank. This fact is denied by the petitioners but it is certainly a disputed question brought before the High Court, Delhi. The petitioners have placed half truth by merely referring to institution of a writ petition filed in Delhi but have deliberately suppressed the manner of dismissal. Again when an appeal against the proceedings had been field before DRT, it is wrong and untenable to duplicate the relief before this Court. The writ petition is an abuse of process of Court and in fraudulent suppression of essential facts. It is dismissed with costs of `10,000/-. AUGUST 09, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE