CWP No. 16855 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:19.05.2011 CWP No. 16855 of 2010 Bhupinder Singh and another ...Petitioners Vs. Punjab National Bank and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Bhatia, Advocate for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J (ORAL). Petitioners have approached this court seeking quashing of notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Notice of motion in this case was issued on 20.09.2010 when the counsel for the petitioners made a statement before this court that he is ready to discharge entire loan liability within a period of 6 months. This court, accordingly, issued notice to motion to explore the possibility of amicable settlement. On the same date, this court also directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within one month and further action under the provision of the Securitisation Act was then to remain stayed. The respondents have put in appearance and sought time to file reply on 25.10.2010 and interim order was continued. On 11.11.2010, counsel for the petitioners stated before the court that the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been deposited with the bank. CWP No. 16855 of 2010 -2- Mr. R.S.Bhatia, who appeared for the bank was asked to verify this fact and the case was adjourned to 29.11.2010. Counsel for the petitioners stated before this court that he would deposit the balance loan amount within a period of one year in equal monthly instalments without any default. The petitioners were further directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- when the case came up for hearing before this court on 01.02.2011. As held by the court; the interim order was to continue subject to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- before the adjourned date. The said amount had not been deposited. It was then pointed out by the counsel for the respondents that earlier sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was also not deposited and only Rs.65,000/- had been deposited. Counsel for the petitioners maintained that he had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- but was not aware whether a sum of Rs.50,000/- as directed on 29.11.2010, had been deposited or not. The case was adjourned with the direction that interim order will continue only if the petitioners had complied with the direction to deposit the said amount. The petitioners have not complied with direction either to deposit full amount of Rs.1,00,000/- or the subsequent sum of Rs.50,000/-. As per the counsel for the petitioners, he has now deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 18.05.2011. Since the petitioner has not complied with the direction issued by this court, he does not deserve any relief in equity. The petitioner apparently is not sincere in discharging his liability. Notice of motion in this case was issued only to explore the possibility of amicable settlement which would not be possible in the circumstances noticed done. CWP No. 16855 of 2010 -3- The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT SINGH) JUDGE May 19, 2011 divyanshi