IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13553 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 15, 2010. M/s Skylark Builders Pvt. Ltd. .....Petitioner versus Bank of India and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Sandeep Suri, 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 demand notice dated 28.1.2010 (Annexure P-2) and the publication of possession notice dated 20.5.2010 (Annexure P-5), issued by the respondent-Bank under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act'). Suffice it to observe that if the petitioner's alleged objections submitted against that notice are turned down or if further action under Section 13 (4) of the Act is taken against him, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, as this Court cannot entertain the writ petition at this stage in view of a recent decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5990 of 2010 (United Bank C.W.P.No .13553 of 2010 2 of India versus Satyawati Tondon and others), decided on 26.7.2010. Following the decision in United Bank of India's case (supra), the petitioner is relegated to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. If the petitioner approaches the Debts Recovery Tribunal within a period of two weeks, the Tribunal shall make an endeavour to decide the petitioner's claim as early as possible. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti. September 15, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE