IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 109 DAVINDER PAUL SINGH TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LTD AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Ms. Pooja Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.31,21,170/ and had paid the entire amount but the respondents have proceedings under P-4) passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the possession of the premises was to be taken on 17.02.2025. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent an amount of Rs.2,40 the petitioner. 3. At this sta amount of Rs.2,40,000/ 4. Learned counsel for the respondents/Bank submits that let the petitioner approach the concerned Branch with regard to his grievance and efforts would be made to redress his grievance in terms of the Policy of the Bank. She also submits that possession IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-4245-2025 DATE OF DECISION: 20.02.2025 DAVINDER PAUL SINGH Versus TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LTD AND OTHERS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Mr. Mohit Vashishat, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Pooja Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.31,21,170/- on 22.04.2013. He had been repaying the same and had paid the entire amount but the respondents have proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. He has challenged the order passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the possession of the premises was to be taken on 17.02.2025. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- on account of penal charges is outstanding against At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this amount of Rs.2,40,000/- is excessive and unreasonable. Learned counsel for the respondents/Bank submits that let the petitioner approach the concerned Branch with regard to his grievance and efforts would be made to redress his grievance in terms of the Policy of the Bank. She also submits that possession of the premises IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2025 DATE OF DECISION: 20.02.2025 … Petitioner (s) TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LTD AND OTHERS ... Respondent(s) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL DEEPAK MANCHANDA , Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Pooja Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had on 22.04.2013. He had been repaying the same and had paid the entire amount but the respondents have erroneously initiated the RFAESI Act. He has challenged the order (Annexure passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the possession of the premises was Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Bank submits that on account of penal charges is outstanding against e, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is excessive and unreasonable. Learned counsel for the respondents/Bank submits that let the petitioner approach the concerned Branch with regard to his grievance and efforts would be made to redress his grievance in terms of the Policy of the he premises has been deferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had on 22.04.2013. He had been repaying the same initiated the (Annexure passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the possession of the premises was /Bank submits that on account of penal charges is outstanding against e, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Learned counsel for the respondents/Bank submits that let the petitioner approach the concerned Branch with regard to his grievance and efforts would be made to redress his grievance in terms of the Policy of the SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.02.21 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-4245-2025 -2- 5. Heard. 6. We are of the considered view that the grievance of the petitioner has been substantially redressed as taking over the possession of the secured asset has been deferred by the respondents. The petition stands disposed of as infructuous. The petitioner would be at liberty to approach the respondents/Bank for redressal of his grievance. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 20.02.2025 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.02.21 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document