IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16702 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 16, 2010. Sh.Lalit Syal .....Petitioner versus Oriental Bank of Commerce .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Diwan Sharma, 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 2.6.2010 (Annexure P-1) as well as the order passed by the respondent- bank declining the proposal for `One Time Settlement'. On receipt of the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act'), the petitioner had submitted his objections thereto alongwith a proposal for One Time Settlement (for short the `OTS'). It appears that the respondent-bank, without formally rejecting the objections, has declined the O.T.S. Suffice it to say that if the petitioner's objections, if any submitted against the notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act, are turned C.W.P.No .16702 of 2010 2 down or if further action under Section 13 (4) of the Act is taken, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal as no writ petition is directly maintainable in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Civil Appeal No.5990 of 2010 (United Bank of India versus Satyawati Tondon and others), decided on 26.7.2010. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondent-bank to decide the petitioner's objections if still pending. However, in the event of further action under Section 13 (4) of the Act, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Dasti. September 16, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE