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 The Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others v. Meenal Agarwal and others, 2022 (2) PLR 408 wherein it was held that the bank cannot be compelled to enter into the OTS if the same is not financially viable. Resultantly, the question of law was reiterated by holding as under:-

"7. In the present case, a conscious decision was taken by the Bank as well as the Settlement Advisory Committee which is reflected from the Board's Resolution dated 28.12.2020 and the decision dated 08.01.2021. Even personal hearing was afforded to the original writ petitioner by the Settlement Advisory Committee on 25.02.2021. The High Court in the impugned judgment and order has observed that no opportunity was given to the original writ petitioner, which is factually incorrect. Therefore, the decision cannot be said to be in violation of the principle of natural justice.

8. While passing the impugned judgment and order, the High Court, in response to the submissions on behalf of the Bank that, there are all possibilities of recovery of the loan amount and the efforts are being made to recover the amount by initiating proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and that the properties mortgaged can be auctioned, has observed that the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act have remained pending for seven years and the Bank has been unable to recover its dues and therefore the hope of recovery is illusory. This conclusion is not supported by any material on record. Merely because the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act have remained pending for seven years, the Bank cannot be held responsible for the same. No fault of the bank can be found. What is required to be considered is a conscious decision by the Bank that the Bank will be able to recover the entire loan amount by auctioning the mortgaged property and a due application of mind by the Bank that there are all possibilities to recover the entire loan amount, instead of granting the benefit under the OTS Scheme and to recover a lesser amount. It is ultimately for the Bank to take a conscious decision in its own interest and to secure/recover the outstanding debt. No bank can be compelled to accept a lesser amount under the OTS Scheme despite the fact that the Bank is able to recover the entire loan amount by auctioning the secured property/mortgaged property. When the loan is disbursed by the bank and the outstanding amount is due and payable to the bank, it will always take a conscious decision in the interest of the bank and in its commercial wisdom.

9. Even otherwise, as observed hereinabove, no borrower can, as a matter of right, pray for grant of benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme. In a given case, it may happen that a person would borrow a huge amount, for example Rs. 100 crores. After availing the loan, he may deliberately not