High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S Guru Gobind Industries vs State Bank Of Patiala And Another on 12 August, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Guru Gobind Industries vs State Bank Of Patiala And Another on 12 August, 2009
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                              CHANDIGARH

                                      Civil Writ Petition No.10296 of 2009
                                             Date of Decision: 12.08.2009

M/s Guru Gobind Industries
                                                                    Petitioner
                                Versus
State Bank of Patiala and another
                                                                 Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH

Present:     Mr.S.S.Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner
             Mr.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate
                        .....

Jasbir Singh, J.

C.M. No.13451 of 2009

Application allowed, written statement is taken on record.

CWP No.10296 of 2009

This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to the notice

issued by the respondent-Bank under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest

Act, 2002. On 15.7.2009, when notice of motion was issued, it was

observed as under:-

“By filing this writ petition, petitioner has laid challenge
to notice issued by the respondent Bank under Section 13(4) of
the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Counsel for the
petitioner states that the petitioner is interested in saving its
property. To show its bonafide, the petitioner is ready to
deposit an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with the respondent- Bank
within a period of three weeks from today and remaining
amount shall be paid within 6 to 9 months, as per the payment
schedule fixed by the respondent- Bank.

Civil Writ Petition No.10296 of 2009 2

Notice of motion for August 12, 2009. The respondent –
Bank is restrained from taking any further coercive action
against the petitioner till the next date of hearing. It is made
clear that if the petitioner fails to deposit the money, as
undertaken today in Court, this writ petition shall be
dismissed.”

Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has failed to

deposit the amount, as undertaken by the petitioner on 15.7.2009. This fact

demonstrates that the petitioner has no intention to repay the loan amount.

Otherwise also, this writ petition is not maintainable as remedy of appeal is

available under the Act.

Dismissed.

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to respondent

Nos.1 and 2.

12.08.2009                                     (Jasbir Singh)
gk                                                 Judge