Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51499-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9232 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Ahamd Trading Corporation And Another Respondent :- Authorized Officer And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Shukla,Rajesh Dutta Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Jainendra Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed seeking to challenge the sale notice for sale of immovable properties dated 20.02.2025, under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and proviso to Rule 8(6) read with Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, issued by the respondent No.1 to the petitioners for recovery of loan amount to the tune of Rs.2,62,47,218.53. The petitioners, further, by way of the present writ petition has sought a direction to the respondents restraining them from adoping any coercive measure to recover the aforesaid loan amount sought to be recovered by the aforesaid sale notice. Upon perusal of the documents, it is crystal clear that the extension of One Time Settlement (OTS) was granted in the year 2024, wherein payments were required to be made by the petitioner by the end of March 2024. This payment was to include the balance of Rs.55,00,000/- along with interest that had been specified in the extension letter itself. In spite of the same the petitioners did not make payment of Rs.55,00,000/- within time. In fact, the payment was made three days subsequent of the date when the OTS Scheme expired. Further, no payment of interest was made by the petitioner. The petitioner has now approached this Court after one year seeking extension of time to pay the interest. No reason has been given in the writ petition for the delay in filing of the same. Furthermore, there is really no cause-of-action that has been shown against the respondent bank except the factual aspect that the component of interest was not known to the petitioner. This Court is unable to countenance the argument made by the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the interest payable, and accordingly, sat over the matter for a period of one year without making payment of the interest under the OTS Scheme. The petitioner cannot use the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to circumvent the rules and regulations as specified in the OTS Scheme. We do not find the actions of the bank to be arbitrary or unreasonable in any manner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Arun K. Singh [Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J.] [Shekhar B. Saraf, J.] Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad