IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 11266 of 2008. Date of Decision: 29th May, 2009. Amandeep Goel Petitioner through Mr. H.C.Arora, Advocate Versus Punjab National Bank & Ors. Respondents through Mr. N.K.Mankotia, 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 seeks quashing of the notice dated 8.5.2008 whereby proceedings under Section 13 of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 have been initiated. The petitioner has also sought a direction to the Bank to accept the payments as per OTS. On 3.2.2008 it was stated on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready and willing to deposit the entire loan payable to the Bank. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time as the parties were exploring the possibility of OTS. On 18.8.2008 it was stated on behalf of the petitioner that except Rs. 3 lacs, the remaining amount had already been paid and that a draft of Rs. 3 lacs would be brought on the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the petitioner has paid the said amount of Rs. 3 lacs also. On 5.2.2009, the following order was passed:- “The petitioner appears to have paid the entire loan amount except a sum of Rs.5000/- which could not be paid due to the inadvertent mistake of the counsel. Besides this, there appears to be some delay in payment on part of the petitioner for which he would be liable to pay interest to the respondent-Bank. The petitioner is directed to meet Mr. R.K.Kashyap, Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Office at Ambala City and make balance payment, if any, as well as simple interest on the delayed payment @13%, as agreed to vide compromise dated 1.10.2007. These payments are directed to be accepted by the respondent- Bank without prejudice to their rights. If anything still remains due towards the petitioner, the same shall be conveyed to him there and then. Adjourned to 18.2.2009. The petitioner shall visit the aforementioned Bank on 12.2.2009”. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank points out that the petitioner did visit the Bank and he has been furnished a Statement of Accounts but the balance amount which is more than Rs. 3 lacs has not been paid by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, disputes the interest liability as according to him, the interest rate has been charged on the higher side. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the scope of interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction, I am of the considered view that if the petitioner is disputing the interest liability, the proper course for him would be to approach any other Fora where disputed questions of fact can be gone into. At the same time, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has paid a substantial amount of loan, this petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner deposits the balance amount within three months, i.e., by 31.8.2009, no coercive steps shall be taken against him. It is made clear that the petitioner shall deposit the balance amount without prejudice to his legal rights. Disposed of. Dasti. May 29, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE