- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35755 WP No. 16012 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 16012 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MR. H. MAHESH S/O SRI. L. HUCHE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.30, RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA, 2ND CROSS, 4TH MAIN, BIKASIPURA, BDA LAYOUT, BSK 5TH STAGE, BANGALORE-560078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER M/S. THE CORPORATION BANK, OFFICE AT NO.527, GROUND FLOOR, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, 3RD BLOCK, BANGALORE-560072. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER M/S. THE CORPORATION BANK NAGARABHAVI BRANCH, SHOP NO.3, BDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, RING ROAD II STAGE, 3RD BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER M/S. THE CORPORATION BANK MAGADI ROAD BRANCH NO.2, ANJANA NAGARA, BYDARAHALLI, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 091 REP BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER. (RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35755 WP No. 16012 of 2022 CORPORATED BY NATIONALIZED BANK) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHU RAO C B., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT-BANK TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT ON 02.07.2022 AND EXTEND THE TIME FOR ANOTHER PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS TO COMPLY THE OTS ACCEPTANCE LETTER FULLY AS PER ANNEXURE-P AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.1- bank to consider the representation given by the petitioner on 02.07.2022 and extend the time for another period of three months to comply the 'One Time Settlement' scheme. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order dated 01.09.2025, the respondent - bank has accepted 'One Time Settlement' scheme in respect of the home loan raised by the petitioner and that the petitioner has cleared it off. He contends that it is only a vehicle loan which is outstanding and that the petitioner has given his offer for 'One Time Settlement'. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35755 WP No. 16012 of 2022 3. The learned counsel for the respondents however, submits that the unless the petitioner pays 10% of the offer, the respondent No.1- bank would not be in a position to take the offer of the petitioner to competent authority for approval. 4. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to comply with the requirements of 'One Time Settlement', so as to enable the respondents to take the proposal of the petitioner for approval before the competent authority. 5. In view of the above, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition and is accordingly, disposed off. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority, in case, the respondents do not accept the 'One Time Settlement' offered by him. 6. Interim order granted earlier is extended for a period of two months or till the respondents consider the offer of the petitioner for 'One Time Settlement' whichever is earlier. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18