IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.18944 of 2008 Date of decision: 15.12.2008 Jagraj Singh & another. -----Petitioners Vs. Punjab Financial Corporation. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:- Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Gill, Advocate for the respondent-Corporation. ----- ORDER: This petition seeks quashing of recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent Corporation under the provisions of State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. Case set out in the petition is that the petitioner No.1 took a loan for purchase of a truck. The loan amount disbursed was Rs.2.80 lacs on 25.4.1990. Petitioner No.2 was the guarantor. There was a default in payment. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.1 lac on 30.10.2003. A further sum of Rs.80,000/- was deposited on 28.2.2005. One Time Settlement proposal of the petitioner was accepted by the Corporation on 2.6.2005 subject to the petitioner paying a further sum C.W.P. No.18944 of 2008 of Rs.5.34 lacs on or before 27.6.2005. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.5.34 lacs upto 29.6.2005, though the same was required to be deposited on or before 27.6.2005. On account of the said lapse, the Corporation started recovery proceedings. The petitioner made a further deposit of Rs.15,000/- on 27.4.2006 and Rs.15,000/- on 1.5.2006. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.31,451/- was also deposited on 23.5.2006. On 5.11.2007, following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner says that all dues of the respondent have been paid. Notice of motion for 25.11.2008. In the meanwhile, there will be stay of any further proceedings by the respondent till the next date.” There is no reply on record, though learned counsel for the Financial Corporation says that the reply has been filed in the registry. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the fact that One Time Settlement proposal was accepted and the petitioner paid the amount, which was only two days beyond the stipulated date, we do not find any justification for the Corporation to make any further demand. Accordingly, we quash the recovery proceedings. The petition is disposed of. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE December 15, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2