The SARFAESI Act provides specific remedies for grievances, and borrowers do not have a vested right to One Time Settlement benefits, which are subject to the bank's discretion.

JUDGMENT

Lisa Gill, J.

This writ petition has been filed for setting aside notice dated 05.02.2020 (Annexure P12) issued pursuant to orders dated 06.08.2014 and 10.02.2015 under Section 14 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short - 'SARFAESI Act') and sale notice dated 14.02.2020 (Annexure P14) with further direction to respondent No. 2 to grant extension for deposit of balance payment in terms of One Time Settlement (OTS) sanctioned on 12.12.2018 (Annexure P7).

2. It is submitted that petitioner, who had set up small manufacturing unit at Badshahpur, availed credit cash limit of Rs. 8 crores from respondent No. 2 i.e. respondent - Bank and properties, as detailed in para 3 of writ petition (house and factory shed), were mortgaged. However, due to unfortunate circumstances beyond control of petitioner, including ill-health of petitioner (now represented by his LRs), there was financial indiscipline due to which loan account was declared Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 31.08.2013. Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was issued on 30.09.2013 claiming deposit of Rs. 8 crores as outstanding on 31.08.2013. Petitioner is stated to have submitted his objections under Section 13(3A) of SARFAESI Act but purportedly without any decision thereon, notice dated 24.12.2013/01.02.2014 under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act issued on was issued. It is submitted that in the interregnum, One Time Settlement (OTS) for a sum of Rs. 7.40 crores was accepted by respondent - bank on 14.08.2015. Sum of Rs. 1.34 crores was deposited pursuant to said OTS but remaining amount could not be deposited.

3. SA-71-2014 was filed by petitioner before learned DRT, Chandigarh, which was dismissed as premature on 01.04.2017 on the premise that possession of property had not yet been taken.

4. Proposal for OTS was again submitted by petitioner after dismissal of SA-71-2014 and matter was yet again settled for a sum of Rs. 4.75 crores with sanction being afforded on 12.12.2018 (Annexure P7). Petitioner, however, could not arrange the amount in terms of said OTS constraining petitioner to seek extension. However, sale of properties was fixed by respondent - bank with issuance of sale notice (Annexure P8).

5. Petition was filed by petitioner before learned DRT, Delhi challenging said sale notice. Simultaneously, petitioner requested for extension of time for deposit of balance amount in terms of OTS. Sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was further deposited on 07.10.2019. Petitioner received communication dated 12.12.2019 from respondent - bank informing that revival of OTS was approved with the condition that remaining amount should be paid on or before 31.12.2019. E-mail in this respect is stated to have been received by petitioner on 26.12.2019 leaving hardly any days with petitioner to deposit such a huge amount.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that time and again effort has been made by petitioner to settle the matter with respondent - bank but in an illegal manner, the bank is not granting extension to petitioner and neither is it coming forward to indicate the minimum acceptable amount. It is contended that even as on 11.12.2023, petitioner set forth proposal of Rs. 4.10 crores but to no avail. It is, thus, submitted that no action under SARFAESI Act should be undertaken against petitioner till the proposal for OTS submitted by petitioner is finally decided. It is, thus, prayed that this writ petition be allowed.

7. This writ petition has been opposed by learned counsel for respondent - Bank while firstly raising objection qua entertain-ability of this writ petition in view of alternate remedy available to petitioner for redressal of grievances in respect to any proceedings undertaken under SARFAESI Act. It is further submitted that One Time Settlement had been sanctioned in favour of petitioner firstly in August 2015 and thereafter on 12.12.2018 but on both occasions, petitioner had failed t