IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 13416 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 17th November, 2010. M/s Saurav Tools Corporation Petitioner through Mr. J.S.Dadwal, Advocate Versus State Bank of India & Anr. Respondents through Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner impugns the action taken by the respondent Bank under Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 primarily on the ground that given some reasonable time, the petitioner is willing to pay the entire dues. On 30.10.2010 notice of motion was issued and further proceedings were stayed subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of `2.5 lacs. The respondent Bank has filed its reply/affidavit. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has deposited `2.5 lacs as directed by this Court. However, it appears that about `7 lacs are still payable by the petitioner. In these circumstances and in order to strike balance between the competing interest of the parties, there appears to be no legal necessity to relegate the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner pays the balance loan amount along with interest by way of monthly installment of `40,000/-, the desirability of further action under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 be kept in abeyance. However, in case of any default in future, the respondent Bank shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Disposed of. Dasti. November 17, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE