IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2774 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision:27.07.2011 Shri Santokh Singh Gaba son of Lachman Singh, House No.293, Ward No.3, Sikh Fort Shahabad (M), District Kurukshetra. ...Petitioner versus State Bank of India, Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager, and another. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Mahesh Dheer, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition is filed challenging the notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, seeking for recovery of the amount lent and treating the account as NPA. Against the outstanding dues, the counsel for the petitioner states that he has made the payment of Rs.50,000/- initially and made a further payment of Rs.3 lacs upto December, 2010. According to him, there is still a balance in the range of Rs.5 lacs and odd, which he would be prepared to pay in 6 month's time. The Bank accepts the details of payment as stated to have been made, but contends that there is no form of settlement for providing to Civil Writ Petition No.2774 of 2011(O&M) - 2 - the petitioner the time as he seeks for. The procedure for sale is followed and so long as the validity of the procedure itself is not in question, the petitioner cannot have any benefit of an interim order. 2. The intervention in the writ petition as sought which is squarely governed by the provisions of the SARFAESI Act is, in my view, not appropriate. It has been laid down by several decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the interim order of stay shall not be given when there is an effective alternative remedy available by means of an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The reference may have had to the decision in Transcore Versus Union of India & another- (2008) 1 SCC 125 and a still recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev Versus State of Maharashtra- 2011 (2) SCC 782. The writ petition before this Court, in my view, is not competent and it is dismissed. The petitioner will have an alternative remedy by means of an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The time taken by the petitioner before this Court may be sought for exclusion through an appropriate application filed under Section 14 of Limitation Act while preferring an appeal and if such an application is filed, the DRT will duly consider the same and pass appropriate orders. 3. The writ petition is dismissed, but with the liberty aforesaid. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 27.07.2011 sanjeev