IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16741 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 17, 2010. Sukhwinder Singh and another .....Petitioners versus Bank of India .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 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 petitioners impugn the notice dated 6.7.2010 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent-bank under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 (for short `the Act'). It is urged that even when the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the over-due amount and a demand draft to this effect has already been got prepared by them, yet the concerned Manager of the respondent-bank has refused to accept the same. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, suffice it to observe that the petitioners, if so advised, may submit their objections to the aforesaid notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act alongwith their offer and the demand draft. The respondent-bank is directed to consider the C.W.P.No .16741 of 2010 2 objections, if any, submitted by the petitioners as also the offer made by them in accordance with law. If the objections/offer given against the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act are turned down or if further action under Section 13 (4) of the Act is taken by the respondent-bank, the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, as this Court cannot entertain the writ petition at this stage in view of the recent Supreme Court decision dated 26.7.2010 in Civil Appeal No.5990 of 2010 (United Bank of India versus Satyawati Tondon and others). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondent-bank to decide the petitioners' objections, if any, and/or consider the offer made by them. However, in the event of further action under Section 13 (4) of the Act, the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Dasti. September 17, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE