Page No. 1/5 GAHC010127122025 2025:GAU-AS:8314-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3426/2025 M/S SREE GOPAL ROLLER FLOUR MILL CHIRAKUNDI AND 3 ORS RAMNAGAR, SILCHAR, CACHAR, ASSAM BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI CHANCHAL GOSWAMI, S/O- JYOTILAL GOSWAMI, R/O- KARIMGANJ ROAD, TARAPUR, P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM 2: CHANCHAL GOSWAMI S/O- JYOTILAL GOSWAMI R/O- KARIMGANJ ROAD TARAPUR P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM 3: BINAPANI GOSWAMI W/O- LATE GOPAL KRISHNA GOSWAMI R/O- KARIMGANJ ROAD TARAPUR P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788003. 4: PANKAJ GOSWAMI S/O- LATE GOPAL KRISHNA GOSWAMI R/O- KARIMGANJ ROAD TARAPUR P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788003 VERSUS Page No. 2/5 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, 2ND FLOOR CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, S B SINGH ROAD, MUMBAI-400001. 2:ZONAL HEAD RESERVE BANK OF INDIA GUWAHATI STATION ROAD PANBAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 3:AXIS BANK LTD HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT AXIS HOUSE C-2 WADIA INTERNATIONAL CENTREPANDURANG BUDHKAR MARG WORLI MUMBAI-4000025. 4:AXIS BANK LTD. SILCHAR BRANCH SHYAMA PRASAD ROAD JAIL ROAD SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM-788004 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P CHOUDHURY, MS B DEVI,MR K BISWAKARMA Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 20.06.2025 [Manish Choudhury, J.] Heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4. Page No. 3/5 2. The petitioners have projected that for running its business, they have maintained a Cash Credit Account with the respondent Axis Bank at Silchar Branch since a considerable period of time. As there arose requirement of financial assistance, they had approached to the respondent no. 4 for a Cash Credit Loan and the same was sanctioned in the Cash Credit Account bearing no. 917030047477371. It is stated that after availing the Cash Credit Loan, the petitioner firm had to credit back Rs. 25,00,000/- to the said Bank. Due to demise of the original proprietor on 01.08.2018, the petitioners had to face a number of challenges. As there was default in making regular payment to the Cash Credit Loan, the petitioners had approached the respondent Bank authorities by submitting a letter on 05.10.2023 to express their intention to settle the loan account under the One Time Settlement Scheme. After consideration of the proposal, the respondent Bank authorities made a communication on 03.11.2023 to the petitioners informing that the proposed settlement amount, offered by the petitioners, was not acceptable to the Bank to settle the loan account. 3. Thereafter, the respondent Bank authorities have initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest [SARFAESI] Act, 2002 with the issuance of a notice under Section 13[2] of the SARFAESI Act on 27.05.2025 mentioning an amount of Rs. 1,54,84,481.64 as the outstanding liability after classifying the loan account of the petitioners as a Non-Performing Asset [NPA] since 29.06.2022. 4. The petitioners have averred that on 27.03.2025, the petitioners in response to the notice under Section 13[2] of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 submitted a Representation before the respondent no. 4 requesting settlement of the account under the One Time Settlement [OTS] Scheme of the Bank giving some monetary relaxation to the petitioners by exonerating them from the interest part of the principal loan account. 5. With the projection that the said Representation has not been responded to by the respondent Bank authorities, the petitioners have approached this Court by the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief :- Page No. 4/5 In the premises aforesaid it is prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, call for records, issue Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction be not issued directing the respondents more particularly respondent No. 4 to consider the prayer of the petitioners for One Time Settlement and/or may pass such further or other orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper. 6. It is noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by its decisions in State Bank of India vs. Arvindra Electronics Private Limited., [2023] 1 SCC 540; and Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Bijnor and others vs. Meenal Agarwal and others, [2023] 2 SCC 805; has considered the matter of One Time Settlement Scheme and maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for consideration under One Time Settlement of a financial institution/bank. 7. 7. It is observed in Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited [supra] that if a prayer is entertained on the part of a defaulting person to compel or direct the financial institution/bank to enter into a one-time settlement on the terms proposed by him, then every defaulting person who is capable of paying his dues as per the terms of the agreement entered into by him would like to get one-time settlement in his favour. It has been observed that no writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing financial institution/bank to positively grant the benefit under the One Time Settlement to a defaulting borrower. A grant of benefit under the One Time Settlement Scheme is always subject to eligibility criteria mentioned under the One Time Settlement Scheme and the guidelines issued from time to time. Such a decision has been held to be commercial wisdom of the financial institution/bank whose amount is involved. 8. In State Bank of India [supra], it is held that the borrower, as a matter of right cannot claim for the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme of a financial institution/bank. A borrower who has not made the payment as per the sanctioned One Time Settlement Scheme to grant further extension as a matter of right and a borrower is bound to make the Page No. 5/5 payment as per the sanctioned One Time Settlement Scheme and a High Court should refrain itself from granting any extension/benefit under the One Time Settlement Scheme while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view of such settled position of law qua the reliefs sought in the present writ petition, we find that the writ petition is not maintainable as what cannot be done directly, cannot also be done indirectly with a direction to the respondent Bank authorities to consider the petitioner’s prayer for One Time Settlement in terms of their proposal, as sought for in this writ petition. Resultantly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No cost. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant