Supreme Court Quashes High Court Mandamus Directing Bank to Consider OTS Application — Bank's Discretion Affirmed.

In Favour of Accused
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by the original writ petitioner against the Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank regarding the rejection of her application for a One Time Settlement (OTS) under the OTS Scheme. The petitioner had taken a loan of approximately Rs. 1 crore, which was categorized as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). After her application for OTS was rejected, she deposited Rs. 60 lakhs to improve her eligibility but was still denied the benefit. The Bank contended that the loan was recoverable through auctioning mortgaged properties and that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria for OTS. The High Court directed the Bank to reconsider her application, which led to the Bank's appeal. The Supreme Court analyzed whether the High Court had the authority to issue such a mandamus and concluded that the benefit under the OTS Scheme cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Court emphasized that the Bank's decision was based on its commercial wisdom and the potential for full recovery of the loan amount. Ultimately, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order, affirming the Bank's discretion in handling OTS applications.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Jurisdiction of High Court - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Bank to grant benefit under the OTS Scheme, which is subject to eligibility criteria. The decision of the Bank and Settlement Advisory Committee was based on a conscious assessment of the borrower's eligibility and recovery prospects, thus the High Court's order was unsustainable (Paras 12).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the Bank to consider the grant of benefit under the OTS Scheme?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's order, and held that the benefit under the OTS Scheme cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

Law Points

  • Article 226
  • One Time Settlement Scheme
  • eligibility criteria
  • mandamus
  • commercial wisdom
  • natural justice
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (SC) (12) 235

Civil Appeal No. 7411 of 2021

2021-12-15

M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna

Meenakshi Arora, V.K. Shukla

The Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Bijnor & others

Meenal Agarwal & others

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the rejection of application for One Time Settlement.

Remedy Sought

The original writ petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Bank to grant OTS.

Filing Reason

The Bank rejected the application for OTS on grounds of ineligibility.

Previous Decisions

The High Court directed the Bank to reconsider the application after a previous rejection.

Issues

Whether benefit under the OTS Scheme can be prayed as a matter of right? Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the Bank to consider the grant of benefit under the OTS Scheme?

Submissions/Arguments

The Bank argued that the High Court erred in issuing a mandamus as the decision was based on eligibility criteria. The petitioner contended that she was eligible for OTS and that the Bank's rejection was arbitrary.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the grant of benefit under the OTS Scheme is subject to eligibility criteria and cannot be claimed as a matter of right, affirming the Bank's discretion in recovery matters.

Judgment Excerpts

The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Bank to grant benefit under the OTS Scheme. No borrower can, as a matter of right, pray for grant of benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme.

Procedural History

The original writ petitioner filed multiple writ petitions challenging the Bank's rejection of her OTS application, leading to the High Court's directive, which was subsequently appealed by the Bank.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
  • Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals Against High Court Ruling on Land Acquisition Inquiry. The decision to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5A was found to lack necessary application of mind by the appropriate Government.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses State Appeal in Bombay Public Trust Act Case Due to Lack of Evidence Against Accused Trustees. Section 35(1) of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 Creates Strict Liability Regulatory Offence Not Requiring Mens Rea, but Acquittal Af...