The court cannot compel a bank to grant one-time settlement as a right to the borrower, but the bank must consider the borrower's representation independently.

JUDGMENT

E.S. Indiresh, J. - This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners calling in question the sale notices dated 23rd June, 2021 (Annexure-H and J) issued by the respondent-Bank and also sought for a writ of mandamus seeking direction to respondent-bank to consider the representation Annexure-G dated 03rd April, 2021.

2. Brief facts, for adjudication of this petition are that, the respondent-Bank, pursuant to the request made by the petitioners, sanctioned loan in a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the petitioners and the petitioners, being borrowers of the loan, deposited title deeds in respect of the schedule property. In the meanwhile, petitioners approached the respondent-Bank for acceptance of One-time Settlement as per the scheme of the respondent-Bank and as such, the respondent-Bank accepted the offer made by the petitioners for One-time settlement for sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- as per Annexure-D. The respondent-Bank had reduced the maximum period of repayment at two months and the petitioners have complied with payment of first two terms of One-time settlement on payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- (through receipt) and Rs. 6,00,000/- (through Demand Draft). Thereafter, the business of the petitioners was affected due to COVID-19 Pandemic and as such, approached the respondent-Bank for additional time to pay the balance amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Annexure-G). The grievance of the petitioners is that, the respondent-Bank, neither accepted the proposal for extension of time nor rejected the same, but has put the assets of the petitioners for auction to recover sum of Rs. 13,64,484.31 by fixing reserve price to the property at Rs. 35,00,000/-. It is the case of the petitioners that the property in question worth Rs. 1,00,00,000/- which is around three times of the reserve price and accordingly, the petitioners have challenged the sale notices issued by the respondent-Bank in this writ petition.

3. On service of notice, the respondent-Bank entered appearance and filed detailed written statement contending that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as no sale had taken place on the date of auction (23rd June, 2021). It is the case of the respondent-Bank that the petitioners are willing to settle dues through One-time settlement in sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- and same was accepted by the respondent-Bank subject to the condition that the petitioners have to comply with the terms of payment of One-time settlement. The respondent-Bank also took up a contention that the petitioners have to approach the competent authority under Section 17 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

4. I have heard Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Hemanth R. Rao along with Sri Rukkoji Rao H.S., learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank.

5. Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that though the respondent-Bank accepted the One-time settlement, but due to unforeseen situation of COVID-19 Pandemic, the petitioners were not able to pay the remaining two instalments in time and as such, filed representation dated 03rd April, 2021 (Annexure-G) seeking extension of time and the same is pending consideration before the respondent-Bank. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has filed Memo dated 17th December, 2021 with details regarding the payment made to the respondent-Bank. He further contended that there is no impediment for the respondent-Bank to consider the representation Annexure-G dated 03rd April, 2021.

6. Per contra, Sri Rukkoji Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank, argued that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable and he further argued that One-time settlement proposal is only an offer and the borrower has no legitimate right to insist for acceptance