IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Sumanthi Polusani Wo Ramchader Rao Polusani – Petitioner
Versus
The Union Bank of India – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 11190 of 2021
Decided On : 23-08-2022
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 13(2) - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14 - requesting to accept the balance payment of One Time Settlement (OTS) under unprecedented COVID-19 crisis as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to accept balance amount of OTS along with interest for delayed six months period immediately setting aside the letter wherein the respondents claimed Rs.99.04 Lakhs in stead of Rs.66.22 Lakhs of balance amount of OTS by disposing the representation -Whether an applicant would be entitled for extension of OTS or not and same - Held, Court directed respondents not to take any coercive steps against petitioner on condition of petitioner depositing lakhs within a period of four weeks from - In default of depositing said amount within stipulated time respondents are entitled to proceed against petitioner accordance with law - Petitioner herein has filed seeking extension of time to deposit said amount - Petitioner herein again filed seeking further extension of time to comply with order said was allowed on and another one month time was granted to petitioner to comply with said order - Writ Petition Allowed.
ORDER :
1. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondents Bank in not considering the representation dated 30.03.2021, requesting to accept the balance payment of One Time Settlement (OTS) vide Lr.No. 0206/45/385, dated 06.01.2020, NPA Account No. 020630100014879, and under unprecedented COVID-19 crisis as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to accept balance amount of OTS along with interest for delayed six months period immediately setting aside the letter dated 31.03.2021 wherein the respondents claimed Rs.99.04 Lakhs in stead of Rs.66.22 Lakhs of balance amount of OTS by disposing the representation dated 30.03.2021.
2. Heard Sri Sudharshan Malugari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. V. Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
3. The petitioner herein had availed term loan of Rs.180.00 Lakhs from the respondents Bank for the purpose of construction of Rural Godown at Nadigonda Village, Raghunathpally Mandal, Warangal District and committed default in repayment of said term loan in accordance with the agreed terms and the account of the petitioner was declared as NPA on 30.09.2017. Thereafter, respondents Bank invoked provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(for short, ‘the Act’) and issued demand notice dated 30.10.2017 u/sec.13(2) of the Act demanding the amount of Rs.1,93,96,399/- as on 29.09.2017 with subsequent interest with contractual rate. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said notice, the petitioner failed to pay the said amount. Therefore, the respondents Bank has filed O.A.No. 727 of 2017 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal -1, Hyderabad (DRT) for recovery of said amount together with interest at contractual rate from the date of filing of said application. The same was decreed vide orders dated 18.06.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents Bank by way of submitting OTS proposal, vide letter dated 06.01.2020. The respondents Bank approved the said OTS proposal and informed the petitioner that she has to pay the amount of Rs.103.50 Lakhs under OTS and upfront amount of Rs.10.25 Lakhs paid by the petitioner will be appropriated towards OTS amount and 15% (20%) shall be within ten days and the balance amount shall be paid within 90 days from the said OTS letter. In the event of failure to repay entire OTS amount within the stipulated time as per sanctioned terms, the OTS stands cancelled and the amount paid under the OTS will be adjusted to the loan account and will not be refunded.
4. The petitioner herein vide her letter dated 30.03.2021 informed the respondents that pursuant to the said letter dated 06.01.2020, she has paid upfront amount of Rs.25.88 Lakhs on 17.01.2020, Rs.10.00 Lakhs on 06.06.2020 and Rs.5.40 Lakhs on 18.08.2020. Though the petitioner herein has paid an amount of Rs.41.28 Lakhs and the remaining balance was supposed to clear within 90 days, the husband of the petitioner was hospitalized with brain stroke, got surgery followed by COVID-19 Pandemic situation, the petitioner is unable to pay the said amount. However, the petitioner informed the respondents Bank that she is going to pay the OTS amount along with interest due under OTS after adjust of upfront amount paid earlier on or before 31.03.2021 and close her loan account. With the said submissions, the petitioner requested the respondents Bank to consider the said request.
5. Vide letter dated 31.03.2021, the respondents Bank informed the petitioner that the outstanding in the loan amount as on 31.03.2021 is Rs.153.04 Lakhs and real account balance as on date is Rs.99.04 Lakhs, on review of the account, it is observed that the real account balance is Rs.99.04 Lakhs and her request to pay balance amount of Rs.62.22 Lakhs is not considered by the higher authorities. Therefore, the respondents Bank advised the petitioner to pay the real account balance
Sardar Associates vs. Punjab and Sind Bank
Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited vs. Meenal Agarwal AIR 2022 SC 56
Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra
Meeragani Appa Rao vs. Deputy General Manager-cum -Authorized Officer, IDBI Bank, Bhimavaram
The court can extend the time for repayment under an OTS scheme, considering the impact of external factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the borrower's efforts to raise funds for repayment.
The High Courts have the jurisdiction to extend the period of settlement as originally provided for in OTS letter, subject to certain guidelines, and the Court may consider granting extension of time....
The court emphasized that the OTS scheme cannot be extended as a matter of right and must be exercised with discretion, considering the borrower's bonafide intent and substantial payments made.
The Court emphasized the Bank's obligation to act fairly and reasonably, and held that the refusal to grant an extension for OTS payment was arbitrary and violative of constitutional provisions.
The court emphasized that the delay in legal proceedings should not prejudice the parties and outlined illustrative guidelines for granting OTS extension, considering the borrower's bona fide intent ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that, in certain circumstances, the court has the authority to grant an extension of time for payment of the One Time Settlement (OTS) as per RBI g....
The judgment establishes the court's power to grant extension of time for payment under the OTS, based on the RBI guidelines and the principles of equity and justice.
The acceptance of late payments under a One Time Settlement can imply a waiver of strict compliance with payment timelines, and interest clauses remain enforceable.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.