Point of Law : The terms of one-time settlement scheme cannot also be interfered with or varied to the advantage or disadvantage of any person by resorting to the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

When the loan account of the petitioner was declared as a non performing asset, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Act') were initiated. While steps for enforcement of the security interest were being carried on, a one time settlement scheme (for short ‘OTS’) was offered to the petitioner by the respondents, which was accepted. The dispute in this writ petition arises from the failure of the petitioner to comply with the terms of the OTS scheme in its entirety.

2. The liability of the petitioner arose under an overdraft facility granted by the 3rd respondent. When default occurred, securitisation proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Subsequently, a scheme for OTS was offered to the petitioner, referred as 'the SBI OTS 2020' as per Ext.P2 dated 20-10-2020.

3. Under the scheme for one time settlement offered to the petitioner, Rs.1,07,81,341/-(for short, 'OTS amount') was fixed as the total amount of settlement payable. The scheme envisaged payment of the amounts in four tranches. The first tranche of payment was 5% of the OTS amount to be paid for processing the application. The second instalment was a payment of 10% of the OTS amount, which was liable to be deposited within 30 days from the date of sanction of the OTS. A further 10% was liable to be deposited within 60 days from the date of sanction and the balance was to be paid within eight months from the date of sanction of the one time settlement scheme.

4. Petitioner paid the first three tranches under the OTS and a further portion under the last instalment. However, petitioner could not pay the last instalment by 30-07-2021, in its entirety and hence she lost the benefit under the OTS scheme. When notices were issued for the sale of the property, this writ petition was preferred seeking a direction to permit the petitioner to pay the balance amount due under the OTS scheme offered to the petitioner along with interest due for the balance amount. Representations submitted before the bank to the above effect are also sought to be disposed of in a time-bound manner.

5. A counter affidavit was filed by the second respondent referring to the past conduct of the petitioner and the defaults committed by her in repayment of the overdraft facility. It was pointed out that the bank had accepted the proposal for one-time settlement for the OTS amount and that petitioner had paid only an amount of Rs.41,81,000/-in place of Rs.1,07,81,341/-. Since, petitioner had failed to pay the balance amount under the OTS, proceedings under the Securitisation Act were continued and a sale notice dated 16.08.2021 was issued, scheduling the property for sale on 24.09.2021. It was further pleaded that, petitioner had approached the bank by offering another settlement proposal in between Rs.1.75 crores and Rs.2 crores, which the bank was willing to consider. However, in the meantime, the writ petition was filed.

6. In the reply affidavit, petitioner narrated the details of amounts paid by her and stated that the last payment under the OTS scheme was made on 30.03.2021 and that thereafter, due to the lockdown declared in the State of Kerala from 08.05.2021 to 08.07.2021, all means of livelihood of the petitioner were curtailed and there was no way to continue any business or earn any income. Petitioner further averred that, as per the OTS scheme, the last date for payment was 30.07.2021, as evident from Ext.P4, but within the said period due to the lockdown imposed, petitioner lost the entire two months and even though the respondent bank had granted facilities to other persons similarly situated, by extending the period for payment, petitioner was not given such benefits. Petitioner also stated that the delayed amount could be paid with reasonable interest so that the respondent bank will not be put to any prejudice.

7. I have heard Sri.R.Gopan, learned counsel for the petitione