CWP No.16351 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16351 of 2011 Date of decision: 21.11.2011 Mohinder Singh ….Petitioner Vs. State Bank of India & others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.H.S.Saggu, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr.G.S.Anand, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2, Mr.Anand Chhibbar, Advocate for respondent No.3. HEMANT GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court challenging auction notice (Annexure P3) whereby the property of the principal borrower, i.e., Kulwant Singh, Proprietor of M/s Kissan Khad Store-respondent No.3 and that of the petitioner was put for auction. On 30.11.2011, Mr.Chhibbar, learned counsel representing respondent No.3 had made a statement that the said respondent is ready and willing to settle the entire amount due to the Bank provided the Bank furnishes complete and proper statement of accounts after deducting enforcement agency charges. During the pendency of hearing of the petition, the Bank has filed statement of accounts and has explained that the loan account of respondent No.3 was declared as non-performing assets on 31.05.2009 when the debit balance was Rs.6,32,302.11. As per the Bank, the amount of Rs.1,86,860/- is the amount due and payable by the principal borrower on account of interest charged at the contractual rate from 01.06.2009 till 31.08.2011. The Bank has also claimed certain amount on account of CWP No.16351 of 2011 2 publication charges and insurance charges. The total amount due and payable by the principal borrower comes out to be Rs.3,81,671.11 as on 05.12.2011 by excluding the enforcement agency charges of Rs.80,708/-. The Bank has submitted the statement of accounts but respondent No.3 has not settled the account till date. Today, Mr.Chhibbar has tendered a demand draft of Rs.1,52,000/- and he further states that for the remaining amount which is disputed, he shall invoke the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal in terms of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Mr.G.S.Anand, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3 has accepted the demand draft without prejudicing the rights of the petitioner. In view of the said fact, we dispose of the writ petition with liberty to respondent No.3 to avail the statutory remedy as is available under the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 within two weeks. However, the property of the petitioner shall not be put to sale till such time objections filed by respondent No.3 is decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) 21.11.2011 JUDGE sailesh