CWP No.1616 of 2010.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.1616 of 2010 Date of Decision: 19.11.2010 **** M/s. Surinder Kumar Rajinder Kumar & Anr. . . . . Petitioners VS. HDFC Bank . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** Present: Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondents No.1&2 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action taken against them 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. During the pendency of this writ petition, it appears that notice under Section 13(4) of the Act has also been issued. 3. The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit. 4. It may be noticed that while issuing notice of motion, interim stay was granted to the petitioners vide order dated 01.02.2010, subject to their paying a sum of `20 lac before 28.02.2010. 5. On 25.10.2010, learned counsel for the petitioners informed that in fact a sum of `24 lacs has already been deposited with the Bank. CWP No.1616 of 2010.doc - 2 - 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank was accordingly directed to have instructions regarding:- a. re-scheduling of the monthly instalments of the Cash Credit Facility given to petitioners No.1; and b. granting one-year period to pay the balance loan amount to the petitioners(s). 7. In deference thereto, it is informed by Mr. Suri that a sum of `24 lacs deposited by the petitioners has been adjusted and thereafter the Bank has re-scheduled the EMI, a copy whereof has been handed over to learned counsel for the petitioners. 8. The respondent-Bank has no objection if one-year period is granted to the petitioners to liquidate their loan liability as per the re-scheduled EMI. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a sum of `1 lac more has been deposited by the petitioners but they are not aware as to whether it has been adjusted by the Bank or not? 10. Having regard to the stand taken by the parties, it appears that the controversy stands amicably resolved as the amount deposited by the petitioners would be undoubtedly credited in their account by the Bank and if so required adjusted against the first EMI. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioners’ paying the re-scheduled EMIs, no coercive action shall be taken against them and the CWP No.1616 of 2010.doc - 3 - proceedings, if already initiated, shall be kept in abeyance. However, in the event of any default, the respondent-Bank shall be at liberty to proceed against them in accordance with law. 12. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 19.11.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE