Advocates appeared :
For the Appellant : Mohd. Wajid Hyder
For the Respondent : Abhijit Chakrabarti Thakur

ORAL ORDER SUJOY PAUL, J. : – This common order will dispose of W. P. Nos. 22127/2021 and 22131/2021.

2. The facts are taken from W. P. No. 22127/2021. The admitted facts between the parties are that the petitioner – a borrower, obtained a loan and intended to repay it in terms of One Time Settlement (OTS). During the correspondence made for this purpose between the petitioner and the Bank, the Bank issued the letter dated 9-3-2021 (Annexure A/1) to the petitioner. In this letter, the amount of OTS was quantified as Rs. 36,50,000/- by mentioning that it is “as per settlement formula given in the scheme”. The petitioner, in furtherance thereof, deposited Rs. 35,00,000/- with the Bank.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by communications dated 25-8-2021 (Annexure P/4) and 22-9-2021 (Annexure P/13). By communication dated 25-8-2021, the Asset Recovery Branch of the Bank informed the petitioner that the proposal of petitioner was put up before the competent authority which has sanctioned the compromise proposal of the petitioner on certain terms. The first term was that petitioner will be required to deposit Rs. 50.50 lakhs as full and final settlement of the dues. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred representation dated 13-9-2021 (Annexure P/5) followed by communication through e-mail. The respondents, in turn, sent another letter dated 13-9-2021 and informed the petitioner that on 25-8-2021, the petitioner was informed about acceptance of the proposal. The Bank has neither received the petitioner’s express acceptance nor denial of the petitioner. Thus, it was presumed that the petitioner has accepted the proposal and in turn, the petitioner was directed to deposit the remaining amount as per OTS sanction. This was followed by another letter of similar effect dated 17-9-2021 (Annexure P/7).

4. Shri Wajid Hyder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 29-1-2021 and apprised the Bank that Bank is not justified in asking the amount over and above Rs. 36,50,000/- mentioned in communication dated 9-3-2021 (Annexure A/1). The petitioner also sent an e-mail regarding the aforesaid stand of the petitioner. Lastly, the respondent sent the impugned letter dated 22-9-2021 and informed the petitioner again that OTS has been sanctioned by the competent authority for Rs. 50.50 lakhs only. The petitioner was directed to follow up with Zonal Office, Jabalpur/ARB Jabalpur for further clarification. It is argued that when Bank did not accede to petitioner’s request, petitioner promptly filed this petition on 5-10-2021. This petition is filed immediately after receiving the communication dated 22-9-2021.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a careful reading of the letter dated 9-3-2021 shows that the petitioner was required to pay minimum 10% of the OTS amount within stipulated time. The petitioner deposited Rs. 35,00,000/- out of Rs. 36,50,000/- within the stipulated time. The only option left with the Bank was to proceed further after the stage of issuance of ‘intimation letter’ and if the petitioner was eligible, issue a ‘sanction letter’. The respondents have miserably failed to accept the same and on the contrary, decided to enhance the compromise amount to Rs. 50.50 lakhs unilaterally. This runs contrary to the OTS scheme. The OTS scheme is binding, submits Shri Wajid Hyder, on the basis of Sardar Associates and ors. vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and ors., (2009) 8 SCC 257. It is submitted that since OTS scheme is binding, the Bank could not have enhanced the amount nor by any stretch of imagination can treat that the offer which was duly accepted as elapsed.

6. A Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in AIR 2007 MP 114, Laxmi Grih Udyog and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another is relied upon to bolster the submission that once an amount for OTS is quantified in pursuance to an offer given by the Bank and the said amount is deposited, the Bank cannot take a different s