CWP No.20437 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.20437 of 2010 Date of Decision: 17.11.2010 **** Pawan Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. Bank of India and another . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 06.08.2010 (Annexure P1) issued by the respondent-Bank under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘the Act’). (2). Concededly, the petitioner has not filed his reply/objection(s) under Section 13(3) despite such a remedy available under the Act. (3). Having regard to all the attending circumstances and the petitioner’s willingness to pay the overdue amount etc, I deem it appropriate to dispose of CWP No.20437 of 2010.doc - 2 – this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to submit his reply/objection(s) under Section 13(3) of the Act along with the Demand Draft bearing No.220056 dated 13.11.2010 for a sum of `1,50,000.00 drawn on Punjab National Bank within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, which shall be considered and disposed of by the respondent- Bank in accordance with Section 13(3A) of the Act. (4). The respondent-Bank may consider the desirability of regularizing the petitioner’s account. However, if petitioner’s reply/objection(s) do not find favour with the respondent-Bank, the reasons shall be conveyed to him and he shall be at liberty to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal as per law. (5). Till then, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner. (6). Disposed of accordingly. Dasti. 17.11.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE