A borrower cannot seek modifications of a One-Time Settlement through a writ petition; such alterations must occur via mutual consent according to contractual law.

JUDGMENT

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition vide Order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)15854/2022, the writ petitioner seeks to assail the said order by way of the instant appeal.

2. The facts in brief, as narrated by the Appellant, reads as follows:

i. It is stated that the Appellant is a part of Supertech Group, which is a real estate developer. It is stated that the Appellant approached the consortium of Banks led by Union Bank of India and consisting of Bank of Maharashtra, Central Bank of India, Oriental Bank of Commerce seeking financial assistance for a project, namely, `Supernova' at Sector 94, Noida.

ii. It is stated that a financial assistance of Rs.735 crores was agreed to be lent by the consortiumof Banks,and a sum of Rs.678.22 crore was disbursed. It is stated that a term loan of Rs.150 crores was also sanctioned by the consortium of Banks.

iii. It is stated that on 29.09.2018, the account of the Appellant was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

iv. Negotiations were held between the Appellant and the consortium of Banks. A One-Time Settlement (OTS) was entered into between the Appellant and the consortium of Banks for the sum of Rs.121.43 crores. The Appellant sought a modification of theOTSand the same was modified.The amount to be paid was reduced from 121.43 crores to Rs.120.94 crores. The amended terms of sanction reads as under:

v. It is stated that the dispute arose between the Bank and the Appellant stating that the Appellant defaulted in the payment of monthly instalments of Rs.4.66 crores each, which was not paid by the Appellant despite letters dated 11.10.2022, 14.10.2022 and 01.11.2022. The Appellant challenged the letters demanding the payment sought for by the consortium of Banks,contending that the amounts were not due and payable and approached this Court by filing a writ petition with the following prayers:

"(a) Issue an appropriate writ/order quashing the Impugned Letters dated11.10.2022, 14.10.2022 and 01.11.2022;

(b) Issue an appropriate writ/order declaring that the moratorium period of threemonths under the Sanction letter dated 18.08.2022 has to be calculated from 18.08.2022;

(c) Issue an appropriate writ/order directing the Respondent to extend the periodof moratorium for a period of 6 months from 19.11.2022;

(d) Pass any other or further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in thepeculiar facts and circumstances of the present case."

vi. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition stating that the writ petition seeks for alteration of the terms of the contract which can only be done by way of mutual consent in terms of Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act,