Civil Writ Petition No. 10783 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 10783 of 2010 Manmohan Singh ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. Varun Katyal, Advocate, for Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 to 5. **** RANJIT SINGH J. While issuing notice in this case, counsel for the petitioner had raised the following contention:- “Contends that petitioner is ready to discharge his whole loan liability towards respondent-bank.” The counsel for the petitioner is asked to comply with the direction for discharging the entire liability of the loan standing towards the respondent Bank. Counsel says that the respondent- Bank has now changed the position entirely by issuing notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act'). Earlier the petitioner was in a position to sell his property and Civil Writ Petition No. 10783 of 2010 -2- discharge the liability, which position has now changed because of the notice issued to him illegally under Section 13(4) of the Act. This notice was withdrawn and has been re-issued to the petitioner to ask him to comply with the undertaking. Counsel, after seeking time and having instructions, submits that he would be in a position to deposit Rs.20 lacs within one month. This would be contrary to the contention raised by the counsel by getting the notice issued. Since the petitioner is no more standing by the undertaking given before this Court, he has lost his right to be heard in equity and law. Dismissed. February 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE