IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 20980 of 2008. Date of Decision: 26th May, 2009. M/s Sea Star Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner through Mr. Nitin Thathai, Advocate Versus Punjab Financial Corporation Respondents through Mr. A.P.Bhandari, 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 advertisement dated 19.11.2008 whereby its mortgaged property has been put to auction to recover the arrears of outstanding loan. At the time of motion hearing on 15.12.2008, this Court took notice of the petitioner's willingness to pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs within one week and remaining amount within three weeks thereafter, as well as of the contention that the impugned demand has been raised by the Corporation by compounding the penal interest and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The auction was accordingly stayed and possession of the mortgaged property was directed to be returned to the petitioner, subject to the petitioner complying with the undertaking. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has deposited Rs.10 lacs. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that during the pendency of this writ petition, the Government of Punjab has notified the One Time Settlement Scheme, 2009 on 2.3.2009 and pursuant thereto, the respondent Corporation has invited proposals for OTS. The petitioner is also stated to have applied under the OTS Scheme and in response thereto, the Corporation vide its Memo dated 12.5.2009, a copy of which is being kept on record, has informed the petitioner that tentatively the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.25.77 lacs under the new OTS Scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid offer is acceptable to the petitioner and it has decided to apply for OTS along with the requisite documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submit that the writ petition, in a way, has become infructuous. He, however, submits and rightly so that in case the petitioner's application for One Time Settlement is accepted, the amount of Rs.10 lacs deposited by it under the orders of this Court may be directed to be adjusted against the total amount which the petitioner would be held liable to pay under the new OTS. Ordered accordingly. It shall, however, not preclude the respondent Corporation to determine the exact amount which the petitioner would be liable to pay under the new OTS by excluding the deposit of afore-stated sum of Rs.10 lacs. Dasti. May 26, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE