C. W. P. No. 13705 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. W. P. No. 13705 of 2008 Date of Decision : November 18, 2008. M/s Goodluck Impex Private Limited .... Petitioner Vs. Dena Bank and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Jagga, Advocate for the respondents. * * * ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) : 1. This order shall dispose of two writ petitions i.e. C. W. P. No. 13705 of 2008 (first petition) and C. W. P. No. 19622 of 2008 (second petition), both filed by the same petitioner. 2. In the first petition, challenge is to letter dated 25.07.2008 (Annexure P-3) under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short – the Act). 3. Learned counsel for respondent no.1-Bank points out that vide subsequent letter dated 14.11.2008, copy of which has been filed as Annexure P-5 in the second petition, respondent no.1-Bank has decided not C. W. P. No. 13705 of 2008 2 to proceed with its earlier notice dated 12.05.2008, reserving liberty to initiate proceedings afresh, if necessary. 4. In view of above, C. W. P. No. 13705 of 2008 (first petition) is dismissed as infructuous. 5. In the second petition, challenge is to the apprehended action of the respondent-Bank and also inaction of respondent no.1-Bank in taking necessary steps against foreign bank or foreign buyer for realization of payments of the petitioner for the goods sent to foreign buyer with the documents transacted through respondent no.1. Documents of title of goods were transacted through foreign bank by respondent no.1-Bank, but the amount of the bill has not been recovered by respondent no.1-Bank from the foreign bank or the foreign buyer. 6. The issue raised is purely contractual. Apart from this, learned counsel for the petitioner himself says that now, steps are being taken by respondent no.1, but the petitioner apprehends that the bank may initiate recovery without waiting for the result of steps being taken to recover the amount on behalf of the petitioner from the foreign bank through whom the documents were transacted by respondent no.1, or from the foreign buyer. 7. We do not find any ground to interfere at this stage, on the presumption that the respondent-Bank will not take any steps and/or that Bank will initiate recovery proceedings without considering the case of the petitioner. Moreover, the issue being purely contractual depending on adjudication of disputed questions, is not fit to be taken up in writ jurisdiction. 8. The petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 18, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE