JASBIR SINGH,J - (1.) : (ORAL)
(2.) WHEN notice of motion was issued, following contention of the counsel for the petitioner was noticed:- "Counsel for the petitioner cites judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India V. Ravindra and others, AIR 2001 S.C.3095 and contends that penal interest could not have been included in the principal amount. In any event, penal interest could not be charged without giving due notice to the petitioner." In para 7 of the written statement, filed by respondent No.4, it has been stated that the respondent-Bank never included penal interest in the principal amount. It was further stated that the CWP No.850 of 2005 penal interest had been charged only on the amount paid to the petitioner and not on the remaining amount. In view of the averments made in the written statement, no case is made out for interference. At this stage, Shri Rangi states that the insurance policy for the animals is lying with respondent No.4. Shri Gill undertakes that the respondent-Bank shall hand-over the insurance policy, if any,to the petitioner within 15 days from the receipt of a copy of this order. It has further been undertaken that the petitioner may approach the authorities and show the receipts for payment of amount to the Bank. After verifying correctness of those documents, his accounts will be reconciled. The writ petition stands disposed of.;