Delay condoned. Our attention is drawn to Clause 2.1 of the One Time Settlement1 Scheme dated 12.10.2020. Clause 2.1 (iii) of the OTS Scheme reads: 1 For short, “OTS”. Digitally signed by SWETA BALODI Date: 2023.09.20 18:24:19 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified “Compromise cases” where repayment has already commenced as per the agreed terms, are not eligible. However, cases of failed compromise settlement where the amount is not received within the stipulated time can be considered afresh. Cancellation of failed compromise letter to be issued to the borrower before considering application under OTS.” The first contention of the petitioners – the Assistant General Manager and Deputy General Manager of State Bank of India, Siripuram, Vishakhapatnam branch,² that there was an earlier compromise settlement/sanction dated 23.11.2018, would not be a good ground and a relevant consideration to reject the OTS proposal under the scheme dated 12.10.2020. The compromise settlement had failed since amounts were not received by SBI within the stipulated time. The second contention raised by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners is predicated on the answer to question no. 7 under the clarifications dated 19.10.2020 to the OTS Scheme. The question and answer is reproduced below: S. No. Question Answer 7. Branch has conducted auctions on 08.03.2019 and 12.06.2019 and the successful bidders have paid 25% of the bid amount. In the meanwhile, the borrowers filed SA in DRT Hyderabad - 1 on 08.03.2019 and 11.06.2019 against the Auction and complied the conditions of the DRT paid 20% amount of the total dues, then DRT In the same situation, we had obtained legal opinion from DGM (Law) in previous SBI OTS 2019 Scheme, where the concluded as under: “To avoid unnecessary legal complications, in our view it is not advisable to issue any notice under the 2 For short, “SBI”. has ordered not to confirm the sale to the highest bidders. The cases are still pending in DRT and posted to 23.10.2020 for further arguments. The accounts are eligible in OTS 2020-21. Hence, we request you to please advise us whether the above said borrowers are eligible for OTS in this circumstances. scheme where the bank has already sold the property under e- auction and the sale process has not yet completed and where the borrowers have challenged the e- auction conducted by the Bank and where the auction has been knocked down in favour of an auction purchaser and who has paid sale consideration. The copy of legal opinion is attached for perusal. Prima facie the clarification to question no. 7 applies to situations where an auction has been held and the bidder has deposited 25% of the bid amount. Clarification does not apply to situations where no bids were received. In the facts of the present case, it is noticed that 7 or 8 different properties are mortgaged. On auction bid was received in respect of one property. To an extent, the said clarification will not be applicable. Therefore, the question which will arise is whether borrower could have applied under the OTS scheme dated 12.10.2020 with respect to the arrears after excluding the amount receivable under the first auction. The clarification to question no. 7 does not relate to such situation. At this stage, we would not like to answer the said question in the absence of the respondent – M/s Tanya Energy Enterprises. Further, given the delay we may have to balance equities, rights and obligations. Accordingly, we deem appropriate to issue notice, returnable in the month of November 2023. Notice will be served by all modes, including dasti. (BABITA PANDEY) (R.S. NARAYANAN) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRA