CWP No. 4034 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 4034 of 2010 Date of Decision: 28.11.2011 M/s Decent Rubber Proprietor ...Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank ..Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia Present: Mr.Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent. Hemant Gupta, J. Challenge in the present petition is to the notice (Annexure P- 2) dated 22.5.2007 under Section 13(2) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short `the Act'). The petitioner availed financial assistance from the respondent for manufacturing of V-Belts. Subsequently the petitioner stopped the manufacturing of V-Belts but starting trade thereof. It is the case of the petitioner that Bank was informed regarding change of trade and also the fact that the petitioner has changed his premises. A fire took place in the premises of the petitioner in the year 2004 unfortunately. The petitioner lodged a claim with the Insurance Company in respect of the damage suffered in the fire but the Insurance Company repudiated such claim for the reason that the petitioner has not CWP No. 4034 of 2010 -2- informed the change of trade as well as change of premises. Aggrieved against the repudiation of claim of the petitioner, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of District Consumer Rederssal Forum. Such Forum held that the Bank is negligent in not informing the Insurance Company in respect of change of business as well as shifting of premises and made Bank liable for the payment of loan availed. In appeal by the Bank, the order passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum has been modified by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Insurance Company has been made liable for wrongly repudiating the claim of the petitioner. Admittedly such order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is the subject matter of challenge before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission wherein there is a stay of the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The grievance of the petitioner is that in One Time Settlement of the loan amount with the respondent, the Bank has sought that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs.11,90,000/- but with stipulation that the petitioner shall make a statement before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that it has no claim against the Bank. The said term is subject matter of challenge by the petitioner in the present writ petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, we find that the said condition is fair and reasonable. Once the amount is settled with the Bank, the Bank cannot be made liable for payment of the dues after receiving the amount from the petitioner. The Bank has conveyed for settlement and it is for the petitioner to accept such proposal. We do not find any illegality in the condition imposed by the Bank that the petitioner shall not claim any amount from the Bank after CWP No. 4034 of 2010 -3- having settled the loan account of the petitioner. Consequently, we do not find any ground to interfere in the present petition. Dismissed. ( Hemant Gupta ) Judge (G.S. Sandhawalia) 28.11.2011 Judge Meenu