High Court Directs Bank to Consider OTS Offer Under Maha Rahat Yojana and Maha Samadhan Yojana. Petitioner, owner of mortgaged property, sought direction to Bank to consider his OTS offer; Court held Bank must consider representation and communicate decision within two weeks.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 128
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Mr. Balkishan Boob, is the owner of a property mortgaged to the Bank of Maharashtra. The property was borrowed by M/s. Bhagwan Cotton Ginners Pvt. Ltd. from the Bank in 2014, and the Bank initiated recovery proceedings, bringing the mortgaged property to auction. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Bank to consider his One Time Settlement (OTS) offer made in a representation dated January 16, 2021, in terms of the Bank's schemes 'Maha Rahat Yojana 2020-21' and 'Maha Samadhan Yojana 2020-21'. The petitioner offered to pay Rs. 4.4 Crores under the OTS scheme. The Bank opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner was not a borrower and that the OTS schemes were not applicable. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the Bank must consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two weeks. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the OTS offer but directed the Bank to communicate its decision to the petitioner. The petition was disposed of with this direction.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Direction to Consider OTS Offer - Petitioner, owner of mortgaged property, sought direction to Bank to consider his OTS offer under the Bank's schemes - Court held that the Bank must consider the representation dated 16.01.2021 in accordance with law and communicate decision within two weeks - Held that the Bank cannot ignore a valid OTS offer and must act fairly (Paras 2-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Bank is obliged to consider the petitioner's One Time Settlement (OTS) offer made under the Maha Rahat Yojana 2020-21 and Maha Samadhan Yojana 2020-21.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Bank to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.01.2021 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Bank shall communicate its decision to the petitioner.

Law Points

  • Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
  • One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme
  • Bank's obligation to consider OTS offer
  • Maha Rahat Yojana 2020-21
  • Maha Samadhan Yojana 2020-21
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (KAR) (02) 31

Writ Petition No. 1267 of 2021 (GM-RES)

2021-02-25

P.S. Dinesh Kumar

Shri. Dhyan Chinnappa (Senior Advocate for petitioner), Shri. D.S. Ramachandra Reddy (for respondent)

Mr. Balkishan Boob

Bank of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to Bank to consider OTS offer.

Remedy Sought

Direction to respondent Bank to consider petitioner's OTS offer made in representation dated 16.01.2021 under Maha Rahat Yojana 2020-21 and Maha Samadhan Yojana 2020-21.

Filing Reason

Bank initiated recovery proceedings and auction of mortgaged property; petitioner sought consideration of OTS offer.

Issues

Whether the Bank is obliged to consider the petitioner's OTS offer under the Maha Rahat Yojana 2020-21 and Maha Samadhan Yojana 2020-21.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner submitted representation on 16.01.2021 offering to pay Rs. 4.4 Crores under OTS scheme. Respondent Bank opposed, likely arguing that petitioner is not a borrower or scheme not applicable.

Ratio Decidendi

The Bank must consider the petitioner's OTS offer and pass orders in accordance with law; the court does not express opinion on merits.

Judgment Excerpts

Heard Shri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Advocate for petitioner and Shri. D.S. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Advocate for respondent. Shri. Dhyan Chinnappa submitted that petitioner has submitted his representation on January 16, 2021 (Annexure-S) with an offer to pay `4.4 Crores under the OTS Scheme.

Procedural History

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; heard and reserved for orders on 23.02.2021; order pronounced on 25.02.2021.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Considers Commercial Appeal Against Trial Court's Refusal to Grant Interim Injunctions in Trademark Infringement Suit. The Court Addresses Preliminary Objection Regarding Maintainability of the Suit and Appeal Without Board Re...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, Adjudicates PIL and Writ Petitions Concerning Desilting Policy GR Dated 04.05.2017. The petitions challenge the validity of clauses 3 and 6 of the Government Resolution for being arbitrary, lackin...