IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15955 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 08, 2010. Sukhdev Singh .....Petitioner versus State Bank of India .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Maninder Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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 seeks quashing of the notice dated 7.8.2010 (Annexure P-4) issued under Section 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short `the Act') by the respondent-bank as the petitioner is said to have failed to re-pay the house loan of Rs.4,19,092.52. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that he is ready and willing to pay the loan amount but the officials of the respondent-bank, for the reasons best known to them, are very keen to sell his properties instead of accepting the due amount. Suffice it to say that nothing precludes the petitioner to pay the loan amount by way of a demand draft through registered post. If the C.W.P.No .15955 of 2010 2 petitioner sends the due loan amount by way of a demand draft through registered post, it would obviously means that the loan liability shall stand liquidated and in that event, the respondent-bank shall not be entitled to take possession of his properties. The petitioner shall be at liberty to claim refund of the excess amount, if any paid by him, before an appropriate forum. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Dasti. September 08, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE