IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET Nos.86 & 87 of 2026 Jiwan Kumar Agrawal …. Petitioner Mr. Subhadutta Routray, Adv. -Versus- State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Madhupatna, Cuttack &others …. Opp. Parties Ms. Mamata Tripathy, Adv. Gayatri Devi Agarwal …. Petitioner Mr. Sunkuru Sudhakar Rao, Adv. -Versus- State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Madhupatna, Cuttack & others …. Opp. Parties Ms. Mamata Tripathy, Adv. CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. 02. ORDER 18.05.2026 Review Petition No.86 of 2026 is by the borrower and companion Review Petition No.87 of 2026 is by the guarantor. They seek review of the very same order dated 24.03.2026 which reads as under: “Challenge is to the coercive recovery asction of the outstanding amount constituted under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Both sides argued the matter for some time and are now graciously agreeable that the borrower and the guarantor shall deposit a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Four Lakh) only in the loan account within three weeks and the balance amount within a further period of two weeks as a pre-condition for consideration of their proposed application for One Time Settlement (OTS). The Bank shall consider the said application leniently, keeping in view the observations of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. United Bank of India, (2016) 2 SCC 757, and the applicable RBI circulars as well as its own policy guidelines. The application for OTS shall be made within one week after making the payment as directed above. Till such application is considered and the result of such consideration is communicated to the borrower and the guarantor, and for a further period of two weeks thereafter, no coercive action shall be taken against them. Ordered accordingly. The writ petition stands disposed off.” 2. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we do not want to undertake a deeper examination, inasmuch the order dated 24.03.2026 emanated at the hands of this Court consensually qua the parties. 3. Regardless of the contentions now advanced, suffice it to clarify that the borrower, having already remitted a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakh only), has to remit another smaller sum of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh only) within two weeks to take refuge under the order now put in review, so that the OTS proposal shall be entertained by the Opposite Party-Bank on a normative basis and in the event the OTS fails the guarantor may seek review of the order dated 24.03.2026 if grounds do exist therefor. Page 3 of 3 4. 4. We make it clear that the amount of Rs.24,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty-Fourt Lakh only) already paid and other amount of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh only) to be paid is fixed as a lumpsum for showing the bona fide as a precondition for entertaining the OTS proposal and we have not determined as to what exactly is the amount repayable by the Review Petitioners. Therefore, Bank may not assume that the amount we have prescribed for payment as a precondition is on some per centage basis qua the outstanding amount. The Review Petitions are disposed off. The sum of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh only) shall be paid within an outer limit of four (4) weeks reckoned from this day, failing which right to move OTS stands forfeited. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Krishna S. Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Prasant Designation: Personal Assistant