Parties must adhere to timelines in loan settlements, but courts may allow re-application under reasonable circumstances.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 31^st day of January, 2024 The petitioner is a borrower of Housing Loan of ₹28 lakhs availed in the year 2015, from the respondent-Bank. The petitioner was given One Time Settlement for settling the account for ₹14 lakhs. Out of the ₹14 lakhs allowed for One Time Settlement, the petitioner remitted ₹13 lakhs. The petitioner could not arrange balance ₹1 lakh.

2. The petitioner was assured by the respondent that the matter will be taken up with higher authorities to obtain permissible benefits to settle the account by paying reasonable interest on the balance payable. Settlement talks are going on. While so, the impugned dispossession notice under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 has been received from the Advocate Commissioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proposed measure and seeks interference of this Court to secure justice.

2. Standing Counsel entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that though the petitioner was offered a One Time Settlement for an amount of ₹14 lakhs, the petitioner could not pay the entire One Time Settlement amount within the stipulated period. The petitioner did not pay the balance ₹1 lakh by the last date of payment under One Time Settlement period. In the circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner for One Time Settlement benefits is not maintainable anymore.

3. Standing Counsel submits that on the failure of the petitioner to adhere to the time schedule for One Time Settlement, the outstanding payable by the petitioner is now more than ₹16 lakhs.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent.

5. The case of the petitioner shows a harsh reality.

The petitioner was given an opportunity to settle the loan account by paying ₹14 lakhs under One Time Settlement. The petitioner remitted ₹13 lakhs within the One Time Settlement period. The petitioner could not pay the balance amount of ₹1 lakh within the stipulated time. Subsequently, the petitioner has managed to remit that amount though the payment was staggered after filing the writ petition.

6. Taking into consideration the afore facts, I am of the view that the respondent shall consider a further proposal for One Time Settlement if made by the petitioner within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing that if the petitioner makes a fresh application for One Time Settlement within a period of two weeks from today, the respondent shall take a decision thereon within a further period of four weeks. Coercive proceedings, if any, shall stand stayed for a period of six weeks.