CWP No.21926 of 2010.doc - 1 - cwp No.HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.21926 of 2010 Date of Decision: 09.12.2010 **** Vinod Kumar Monga . . . . Petitioner VS. State Bank of Patiala . . . . . Respondents **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. GS Anand, Advocate for Caveator/respondent ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is aggrieved by the possession notice issued on 12.12.2008 (Annexure P2) by the respondent-Bank under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘the Act’). CWP No.21926 of 2010.doc - 2 - (2). The petitioner fairly admits that due to the financial crunch he could not pay the loan amount as a result whereof, the account was declared as Non Performing Assets (NPA). It is further submitted that should there be some reasonable period given to the borrowers, they are willing to liquidate their entire loan liability. (3). In view of the Supreme Court decision in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others, Civil Appeal No.5990 of 2010, in my considered view that the afore-stated relief can be sought by relegating the petitioner to the DRT. (4). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the DRT. It is however, directed that in case the petitioner approaches the DRT, even at this belated stage, his prayer for condonation of delay shall be considered sympathetically provided that the third party rights have not been created and/or no serious prejudice is caused to the respondent-Bank. (5). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 09.12.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE CWP No.21926 of 2010.doc - 3 -