The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of timely compliance with settlement terms and the discretion of banks in enforcing recovery of outstanding dues.

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. In the present writ petition, the petitioners have claimed a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to accept 75% of the balance amount of Rs. 17,80,445.52 in instalments in terms of one Time Settlement Scheme issued by the Reserve Bank of India.

2. Petitioner No. 1 is a firm and petitioner No. 2 is a partner thereof. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the firm has availed loan against the security of residential house situated in Mohalla Ramgali Rewari and land measuring 21 Kanals 5 Marlas and 3 Kanals 5 Marlas at Jhajjar Road, Rewari.

3. In terms of one time settlement scheme issued by the Reserve Bank of India in the year 2001, the respondent Bank issued a letter to the firm on 13-3-2001 informing the conditions of one time settlement scheme. The said communication was made in view of the default in making the payments in repayment of the amount loaned by the bank to the petitioners. The firm on 30-3-2001 communicated its acceptance to the bank by payment of Rs. 17,70,000/- as a full and final settlement. The said communication reads as under :-

Rama Industries

Engineers and Manufacturers

Rewari (Haryana)

30-3-2001

To

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Rewari.

Sub : Final settlement of our a/c M/s. Rama Industries

Jhajjar Road, Rewari.

Ref : Your letter dated 13-3-2001

Dear Sir,

We have received your abovementioned letter in which demanded Rs. 17,70,000/- (Rs. Seventeen lacs and Seventy thousand) as a full and final settlement.

In this regard, we submitted our proposal as under :-

1. 25% of the settlement amount will be deposited upto 31-3-2001.

2. Balance amount will be paid within one year with interest upto 31-12-2001 @ 12% p.a.

3. All cases against us will be withdrawn within one month after full payment and consent decree of DRT Courts.

4. The title deed of residential house pledged against this account will be released at the time of full and final payment. Please confirm our proposal so that we may deposit the 25% amount after discussing with the other partner.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

Partner.

Accepted as per OTS Scheme subject to consent decree from DRT Chandigarh and full payment as per OTS Scheme/DRT consent decree.

Sd/- Branch Manager

31-3-2001."

4 In pursuance of such acceptance, the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs. 4,43,000/- on 31-3-2001. However, the petitioners have not deposited the balance amount committed by the petitioners in the above communication on or before the time fixed. Though it is the case of the petitioners that many communications were addressed for depositing the balance amount but the Bank has denied the receipt of any of such communication. The fact remains that the balance amount required in terms of one time settlement was not deposited by the petitioners within the time contemplated under the said scheme.

5. Initially, petitioner No. 1 invoked the jurisdiction of this Court but subsequently petitioner No. 2, one of the partners, moved an application for impleading the said partner as petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 2 also sought amendment in the writ petition which was allowed. In the amended petition, it was pleaded that the petitioners have already paid the entire amount of Rs. 17.70 lacs under one time settlement scheme and that the principal amount availed by the petitioners was only Rs. 5 lacs. The entire subsisting claim of the respondents against the petitioners is on account of interest only. It may be noticed that on October 9, 2003, the writ petition was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner so as to enable him to seek instructions as to whether the petitioner is willing to show his bona fide by depositing at least 50% of the balance amount in this Court. However, two bank drafts amounting to Rs. 13,27,000/- representing 75% remaining amount under one time settlement scheme were handed over to the counsel for the bank only on 23-7-2004. The order passed by this Court on the said date reads as under :-

"Learned counsel appea