IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 21.09.2010 COCP No.1713 of 2009 Spring Hill Resort Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Gurmit Singh, Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Surinder Pal, Advocate, for Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Umang K. Khosla, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner has sought initiation of contempt proceedings alleging violation of the order passed by this Court on 26.05.2009. The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing the Bank to hand-over physical possession of the property of which he was found to be highest bidder in an auction conducted on 29.07.2008. The writ petition was disposed of on 26.05.2009 with a direction to the Bank to dispose of the representation of the petitioner regarding delivery of physical possession of the auctioned property as early as possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Since the petitioner was not handed-over the possession of the property said to be purchased by him in spite of directions of this Court, the petitioner invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. In reply filed on 22.02.2010, it has been pointed out that the property was put to sale by the Bank under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’) and that the COCP No.1713 of 2009 borrower has filed an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and that the Debt Recovery Tribunal has stayed further proceedings in pursuance of the sale by the authorized Officer of the Bank vide order dated 13.03.2009. The petitioner was informed through the Process Serving Agency of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Amritsar in respect of such proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. A copy of the said order has been appended with the reply as Annexure R-5. Since the proceedings are pending before an Authority under the SARFAESI Act even prior to the order passed by this Court, it cannot be said that the respondents have violated the order passed by this Court regarding delivery of physical possession of the property to the petitioner. In view of the above, no further orders are called for in the present contempt petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. 21.09.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2