AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabina, J
Petitioner has filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-
"i) That the respondent may be directed to restore the possession with to the petitioner.
ii) That the benefit of OTS Scheme may be given to the petitioner."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has approached the respondent -Bank under One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme in terms of the order passed by this Court dated 27.10.2021. As per the settlement, petitioner has agreed to pay Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs only) to the respondent-Bank as full and final settlement of its claim. Petitioner has already paid Rs.3,30,000/- to the Bank and the remaining amount will be paid to the respondent-Bank on or before 15. 02.2022. The benefit of OTS Scheme has not been given to the petitioner as per the Reserve Bank of India's Regulations. The possession of the property in question be ordered to be restored to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has submitted that the possession of the property in question was taken by the respondent-Bank on 27th September, 2021. In the proceedings before this Court in CWP No.6700 of 2021, it was the case of the petitioner that they already have a ready buyer with them and after selling the property in question, petitioner would repay the loan in terms of the OTS Scheme.
Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No.6700 of 2021 and on 27th October, 2021, the said writ petition was disposed of by passing following order:-
"Notice. Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
Learned counsel for respondents-Bank states that internal one-time settlement is still in progress and in case the petitioner approaches the respondents- Bank within a reasonable period, the same can be considered in accordance with the instructions and guidelines issued from time to time.
Confronted with this, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted permission to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to file it afresh on the same and similar cause of action, if need so arises.
The instant petition is disposed of, as withdrawn, by permitting the petitioner to avail OTS in accordance with law, with liberty as aforesaid. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of."
Admittedly, in pursuance to the said order, petitioner has approached the respondent-Bank under the OTS Scheme and parties have arrived at a settlement. Although, petitioner has already taken the benefit of OTS Scheme but has now prayed that the benefit of OTS Scheme has not been given to him as per RBI norms. Once the petitioner has already availed the benefit under the Scheme, it is estopped from challenging the settlement. Petitioner has already paid Rs.3,30,000/- to the respondent-Bank in pursuance to the One time settlement arrived between the petitioner and the Bank.
Admittedly, proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 have already been initiated against the petitioner. Since possession of the property in question has been taken from the petitioner in the proceedings under Rule 8(1) of the SARFAESI Act, no ground for interference by this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is made out.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.