Back
G. S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Veena Rani – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to securitization proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court analysis on ots rejection and procedural compliance. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. disposition of the writ petition and orders. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)
Challenge in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the securitization proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'the Act').
2. Reply has been filed, a perusal of which would go on to show that Rs.73,51,681/- was the outstanding on 13.04.2022. An offer of Rs.21,59,869/- as one time settlement was made by the petitioner, which was rejected by the respondent No.3-Bank vide letter dated 13.04.2022 (Annexure R-3). The financial institution noticed that there was outstanding of Rs.73,51,681/- and, therefore, the settlement was not reasonable and acceptable and the same was rejected, keeping in mind the value of the secured asset.
3. We do not find any ground as such to interfere with the order of the financial institution rejecting the OTS keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Th
(1) No borrower can, as a matter of right, pray for grant of benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme.(2) No bank can be compelled to accept a lesser amount under OTS Scheme despite the fact that Bank i....
Banks are not mandated to disclose benchmarks or consider OTS proposals, and courts cannot compel alteration of existing financial agreements under Article 226.
Borrowers must comply with One Time Settlement terms to claim benefits; courts cannot interfere with banks' discretion in such matters.
Courts cannot compel banks to provide benefits of One Time Settlement Schemes if borrowers fail to meet payment obligations under the scheme, preserving the contractual sanctity and banks' discretion....
A Writ of Mandamus cannot compel a financial institution to grant benefits under the One Time Settlement scheme, as eligibility criteria must be respected.
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 Cons....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
