JUDGMENT

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Mishra, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. B.N. Udgata, learned Advocate for Opposite Parties 1 to 3-Bank.

2. The prayer of the Petitioner is for a direction to Opposite Parties- Bank for full and final settlement of the loan amount through One Time Settlement (OTS).

3. Mr. B.N. Udgata, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties-Bank submits that since the loan account of the Petitioner has been identified as NPA, therefore he is not covered under the OTS Scheme for consideration.

4. According to Mr. Udgata and as stated in the counter affidavit at paragraph 4, the amount outstanding as on 08.01.2025 is Rs.60,99,562.37 paise payable by the Petitioner with further interest and cost till the date of payment. It is further submitted that in the meantime a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act has been issued to the Petitioner on 15.02.2025.

5. As per the Petitioner, he took a loan of Rs.1,02,00,000/- on 30th June 2022 and he repaid the loan amount to the tune of Rs.74,00,000/-. For the rest amount, he defaulted leading to such outstanding amount as on 08.01.2025.

6. It is true that the Petitioner being a debtor has no right to claim any relief under the OTS Scheme for lesser amount in the event he is not covered under the OTS Scheme. As per the Bank, since the account of the Petitioner has been declared NPA, he is not entitled to avail the OTS Scheme of the Bank.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Bijnor and others vs. Meenal Agarwal and others, (2023) 2 SCC 805, has observed as follows:

12. 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 pay any amount towards instalments, though able to make the payment. He would wait for the OTS scheme and then pray for grant of benefit under the OTS scheme under which, always a lesser amount than the amount due and payable under the loan account will have to be paid. This, despite there being all possibility for recovery of the entire loan amount which can be realised by selling the mortgaged/secured properties. If it is held that the borrower can still, as a matter of right, pray for benefit under the OTS scheme, in that case, it would be giving a premium to a dishonest borrower, who, despite the fact that he is able to make the payment and the fact that the bank is able to recover the entire loan amount even by selling the mortgaged/secured properties, either from the borrower and/or guarantor. This is because under the OTS scheme a debtor has to pay a lesser amount than the actual amount due and payable under the loan account. Such cannot be the intention of the bank while offering OTS scheme and that cannot be the purpose of the scheme which may encourage such a dishonesty.

13. If a prayer is entertained on the part of the defaulting unit/person to compel or direct the financial corporation/bank to enter into a one-time settlement on the terms proposed by it/him, then every defaulting unit/person which/who is capable of paying its/his dues as per the terms of the agreement entered into by it/him would like to get one-time settlement in its/his favour. Who would not like to get his liability reduced and pay lesser amount than the amount he/she is liable to pay under the loan account? In the present case, it is noted that the original writ petitioner and her husband are making the payments regularly in two other loan accounts and those accounts are regularised. Meaning thereby, they have the capacity to make the payment even with respect to the present loan account and despite the said fact, not a single amount/instalment has been paid in the present loan account for which original petitioner is praying for th