IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.11746 of 2008 Date of decision: 22.10.2008 M/s SPL Electrotech Pvt. Ltd. -----Petitioner Vs. Canara Bank and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:- Mr. A.K. Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Paul Jagga, Advocate for respondents. ----- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks a direction for accepting one time proposal by way of settlement and not to initiate process of sale of properties of the petitioner. 2. On July 14, 2008, this Court recorded statement of learned counsel for the petitioner that only a sum of Rs.1,49,55,000/- was payable to the Bank against fund based loan. A compilation marked as Annexure P-21 was taken on record. The said amount in the form of banker’s cheque was given by the petitioner. This Court directed the same to be deposited as Fixed Deposit Receipt in a nationalized bank. C.W.P. No.11746 of 2008 3. The Bank has disputed the claim of the petitioner that only liability was Rs.1,49,55,000/- against the fund based loan. 4. This is not a forum where disputed questions of facts can be settled particularly having regarding to fact that alternative remedy is available under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts (Dues to the Banks and Financial Institutions) Act, 1993. 5. We make it clear that the parties will be at liberty to have their claims settled about the extent of liability at appropriate forum. 6. In view of the fact that a sum of Rs.1,49,55,000/- has been admitted to be due even by the petitioner and a cheque handed over in this Court, the respondent-Bank will be at liberty take the said amount. According to the Bank liability of the petitioner was higher than what was mentioned before this Court which was clear from the statements of the petitioner extracted in the written statement of the Bank at pages 155 and 158 of the paper book. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Bank may not sell the property and instead the petitioner may be allowed to sell the property to pay the dues. 8. Learned counsel for the Bank has no objection to the petitioner being allowed to sell the properties by associating the Bank. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner has arranged a buyer and applied to the Bank for NOC. 10. The Bank may consider the application of the petitioner in the light of value offered and otherwise available. 11. We make it clear that the sale amount will be directly paid to the Bank, to the extent of dues as claimed by the Bank. This will be 2 C.W.P. No.11746 of 2008 subject to final settlement before appropriate forum, if any party approaches such forum. 12. If it is found that the amount already paid by the petitioner or which may be paid by the petitioner is in excess of the dues of the Bank, the Bank will be liable to refund the same with such interest as may be directed in appropriate proceedings. 13. The petition is disposed of. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE October 22, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3