IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20351 of 2010 Date of Decision : November 16, 2010. Sarita .....Petitioner versus ICICI Bank Limited .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.L.M.Gulati, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sandeep Suri, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr.Sandeep Suri, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-bank. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter reply from the respondent at this stage. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner has rushed to this court even without submitting her reply/objections under Section 13 (3) of the Act, of course on the plea that C.W.P.No .20351 of 2010 2 she is willing to deposit Rs.1.5 lacs within a period of one week and undertakes to pay the balance loan amount alongwith interest within a period of one year in equal monthly instalments as may be re- determined/re-scheduled by the respondent-bank. The offer given by the petitioner appears to be fair and reasonable. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner deposits Rs.1.5 lacs within a period of one week and gives an undertaking to pay the balance amount alongwith interest within a period of one year in equal monthly instalments, the respondent- bank may consider the desirability of re-scheduling the loan account. However, if the respondent-bank rejects the above-stated offer, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 26.7.2010 in Civil Appeal No.5990 of 2010 (United Bank of India versus Satyawati Tondon and others) and in that event, the petitioner's dispossession shall remain stayed and her solitary residential house shall not be put to auction till the matter is decided on merits, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall continue to deposit the monthly instalments regularly at the original rate. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. November 16, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE