CWP No.7900 of 2011(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.7900 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 12.09.2011 V.K. Handa son of Late Sh. Amin Chand Handa, Ex-Partner of M/s Mahalaxmi Cycle Udyog, (Presently partner of M/s Mahalaxmi Trading Company), C-200, Phase-VII, Focal Point, Ludhiana-141 010 ... Petitioner Versus Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director, Regd. Office at 18, Himalaya Marg, Udyog Bhawan, Sector 17A, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Naresh K. Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ***** 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. Written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.3 is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 is present and ready but there is no representation on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. The contention of the respondents is that no direction could be issued as far as for bifurcation of the plot and the second prayer against the Bank from cancelling or calling the Cash Credit Limits, according to the respondents, cannot be granted for right of the Bank for enforcement of the security cannot be curtailed. 3. The counsel for the petitioner is prepared to restrict his remedy only against respondents No.1 and 2 for consideration of the petitioner's request CWP No.7900 of 2011(O&M) [2] for bifurcation of the plot pursuant to the arrangement amongst the erstwhile partners reserving the petitioner's 60% share for the partnership asset including the property allotted by respondents No.1 and 2 while 40% is to be allotted to the fourth respondent. The counsel for the petitioner points out to the policy of the Corporation brought through a resolution at 28th meeting of the Board of Directors on 08.02.2005 allowing for bifurcation/fragmentation of all plots in the size of 1000 sq. yds and above, provided however, no fragmented portion shall be less than 400 sq. yds. The property allotted to the partnership was claimed to be 4707 sq. yds and fragmented portion that could be allotted to the 40% share could still be above 400 sq. yds. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the only objection taken by the respondents on the issue of allotment is that the petitioner did not appear in person before the Estate Officer, PSIEC to enable the respondents to undertake a personal verification. The counsel states that the petitioner is willing to appear in person with all the relevant documents to secure the approval for fragmentation of the property. The petitioner is directed to appear on 29.09.2011 and if, he produces relevant documents as sought for by respondents No.1 and 2, they shall take appropriate decision pursuant to the resolution allowing for bifurcation/fragmentation of an industrial plot. 5. The petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court for any direction if the petitioner faces any difficulty in making the due representation on 29.09.2011. A copy of the order be given to the parties dasti on payment of usual charges. 6. The writ petition is disposed of as above. SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE