S. No. 34 Suppl Cause List INTHE HIGH COURT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) no. 118/2025 CM no. 253/2025 M/s Sherif Cargo and others …Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Syed Faisal Qadiri, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mariya Ashraf, Adv. Vs. The Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. And others ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI-JUDGE ORDER 16.01.2025 1. Through the medium of the instant writ petition filed under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought the issuance of writs/directions in the nature of certiorari and mandamus for setting aside the impugned order/communication bearing No. JKB/IARB/2024/059 dated 29.11.2024, issued by the respondents with a direction to them to settle the accounts of the petitioners in terms of correspondence dated 11.11.2024. The case of the petitioners in nutshell is that the respondents- Bank accorded sanction of credit facilities to the petitioner Firm from time to time to help meet its working capital requirements. That over and beyond the various facilities sanctions, an ad hoc overdraft of Rs. 5 Crores also came to be sanctioned in favour of the petitioner no. 2. That as per the terms of the sanction, the said facility was to be adjusted within 60 days. That while the sanction was accorded on 29.10.2018, the said amount only came to be disbursed much later on 03.01.2019. That two extensions of 60 days each were sought for re- adjustment of the ad hoc facility, which, computed from the date 2 WP(C) no. 118/2025 CM no. 253/2025 of disbursal of funds ought to have been adjusted by 07.06.2019. that, however, the Bank computed the adjustment period from the date of sanction, until 07.06.2019 and accordingly proceeded to freeze the accounts of the petitioners and consequently declared the same as NPA later. That ever since, the petitioners made payments in excess of Rs. 2 Crores after freezing of the accounts to regularize the same but the Bank failed to do so. That, thereafter, attempts were made to restructure the accounts in terms of the correspondence dated 04.09.2020, however, the Bank failed to respond to the same. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Syed Faisal Qadiri, learned Senior Advocate, who inter alia submitted that the petitioners represented before the respondent-Bank and expressed their willingness to avail the OTS Scheme of the Bank for restructuring their accounts and process was initiated by the respondents, but finally the Bank has refused to extend benefit of OTS Scheme to the petitioners without assigning cogent reasons through the order/communication dated 29.11.2024. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the instant writ petition can be disposed of even at this threshold stage by passing an appropriate direction upon the respondents for re-consideration of offer of the petitioners regarding One Time Settlement (OTS) of the outstanding loan amount. 4. Also heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Bank in rebuttal. 5. In backdrop of the controversy, this Court is of the opinion that the matter can even be disposed of at this threshold stage by passing of such an appropriate order which will not prejudice the interest of the other party. 6. Accordingly, instant petition is disposed of at this threshold stage with a direction to the respondent-Bank to re-consider the offer of the petitioners for availing OTS Scheme of the Bank in accordance with the norms of the Scheme within a period of three weeks from the date 3 WP(C) no. 118/2025 CM no. 253/2025 copy of this order is furnished to them, during which period no coercive action shall be pursued/taken against the petitioners. 7. Disposed of along with the connected CM. (MOHD YOUSUF WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 16.01.2025 “Imtiyaz” Imtiyaz Ul Gani I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 18.01.2025 14:52