Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DRAT) 145
DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava, CJ
State Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Kamyab Television Private Limited – Respondent
Appeal No. 69 of 2019 | M.A. 09 of 2019 | O.A. 70 of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Debasish Chakrabarti
For the Respondents: None
Benefits under One Time Settlement schemes are not a matter of right and are subject to eligibility criteria determined by the financial institution.
Headnote:(A) State Bank of India Act - One Time Settlement Scheme - The appeal arises from a DRT order allowing a request for extension of time to comply with an OTS scheme, which was rejected by the Bank as it expired on 30th April 2018. The court found that the DRT exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the extension. (Paras 3, 7, 9)
(B) Legal Principles - The court reiterated that benefits under OTS schemes cannot be claimed as a matter of right and are subject to eligibility criteria and the discretion of the financial institution. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The State Bank of India filed an O.A. for recovery of Rs.5,81,26,384.02 from the Respondents, who failed to comply with the OTS scheme by the stipulated deadline. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The DRT's order allowing the extension was set aside due to material illegality, affirming that the OTS scheme was strictly time-bound. (Paras 9)
Issues: The main issues were whether the DRT could extend the time for compliance with the OTS scheme and the legal implications of the Bank's refusal to grant an extension. (Paras 6, 9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the DRT lacked jurisdiction to extend the OTS scheme's compliance deadline, which was non-discretionary and strictly enforced. (Paras 7, 9)
Result: Appeal allowed; the DRT's order was set aside and the M.A. dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the appeal and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the one time settlement scheme. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis on the ots scheme and its implications. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT : 7th July, 2025
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record. None appears for the Respondents despite service.
2. Instant appeal has arisen against judgment and order dated 21.2.2019, passed by Learned DRT, Cuttack, allowing M.A. 09 of 2019. (State Bank of India -vs- M/s. Kamyab Television Private Limited & Others).
3. As per the pleadings of the parties, it appears that an O.A. was filed by the Bank for realization of a sum of Rs.5,81,26,384.02p wherein the Respondents No. 4 and 5 herein were a mortgagors. It appears from the record that the Respondent, namely, Manoj Dash, was in judicial custody in some matter. One OTS Scheme, being SBI One Time Settlement-2017 was floated by the Appellant Bank for settlement of N.P.A. and Aucas in Manufacturing Trade, Services and Agricultural Sector, being SBI OTS 2017, which was in force wherein the proposal for One Time Settlement was arrived at between the parties for an amount of Rs.9,00,804.00 at 35% of the OTS amount, i.e. Rs.6,75,604.00 was deposited on 27.11.2007. Last date for compliance under the Scheme was 30th April, 2018. Rest of the amount i.e. Rs.47,29,222.00 could not be deposited by the stipulated date, i.e. 30th April, 2018, and an extension was sought from the Bank which was refused. Thereafter, M.A. was filed before the Learned DRT which was allowed by the Learned DRT by passing the impugned order directing the Bank to collect the Demand Draft from the Respondent. The Bank is entitled for 10% interest simple from 30th April, 2018 till 20th February, 2019 and the balance amount of OTS Rs.47,29,222.00 which is paid by the Respondent No. 2. Further interest is to be calculated by the Bank and to be informed to the Respondent which shall be deposited by him and notice shall be issued by the Bank. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, Bank preferred the appeal.
4. Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that the Scheme was effective till 30th April, 2018 but the amount was not deposited by the Respondents. A request was made for extension of time which was duly replied and rejected vide letter dated 23.4.2018. Thereafter, Scheme expired on 30th April, 2018. Learned DRT erred in passing the impugned order.
5. It is undisputed that SBI One Time Settlement Scheme was launched by the Bank which was non-discretionary and non discriminatory and was in force till 30th April, 2018. Respondents herein could not fulfill the conditions within the stipulated period and sought for extension of time which expired on 30th June, 2018 on the ground that some transactions and proposal of the Respondent are at final stage which may take some time accordingly time for making the deposit may be extended till 30th June, 2018. This request was declined by the Bank on 23.4.2018 referring to paragraph 4 of the Sanction Letter No. SARB/CTC/08/585 dated 30.10.2017 which reads as under:
“2) As per the terms & conditions enumerated in sanction letter No. SARB/CTC/08/585 dt. 30.10.2017 in para IV it is mentioned that "the balance amount can be paid within 6 months from the date of the letter i.e. 30/04/2018 (the validity period) together with interest @ MCLR + 2% for six months failing which the OTS sanction will be rendered in-fructuous.”
3) The said OTS scheme is non-discretionary and non-discriminatory and it is strictly time bound one. Hence your request for extension of two months time i.e. upto 30/06/2018 is not acceded to. Therefore, please arrange to deposit the balance amount of OTS amount together with interest due within 30/04/2018, otherwise you will be liable to pay the total dues of the bank i.e.principal with interest & other expenses accrued to your loan account.”
6. Thereafter M.A. was filed by the Respond
