$~71 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010097212026 + W.P.(C) 3366/2026 & CM APPL. 16170/2026 GIAN CHAND SINGHAL AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Pratiti Rungta and Mr. Sumit Pargal, Advs. versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout, SC, with Mr. Rocky Jaryal Managar (Law) SBI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 28.09.2026 1. In the present case, in paragraph No. 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 has stated as under:- “9. That the Petitioner in the instant Petition is further seeking refund of the upfront amount deposited in the No Lien Account. However, the Petitioner has failed to disclose before this Hon'ble Court that the Answering Respondent Bank had already rejected the OTS proposal of the Petitioner vide letter dated 12.04.2022. That the amount deposited by the Petitioner is lying in the No Lien Account and, despite rejection of the OTS proposal, the Petitioner neither submitted any fresh OTS proposal nor took steps to seek refund of the said amount and after a This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:26:01 lapse of nearly four years, the Petitioner is now seeking to compel the Answering Respondent Bank to consider an OTS proposal which had already been rejected. Since the rejection of the ors proposal, the Answering Respondent Bank has been awaiting the Petitioner to take back the said amount. The Petitioner, despite being aware of the rejection, deliberately failed to take steps for refund of the amount for a prolonged period. That the Answering Respondent Bank is already ready to refund back the said amount but it is the petitioner who has not taken the said amount till date and has now filed the Instant Petition to harass the Answering Respondent Bank.” 2. The aforesaid proposal of respondent No. 1 is acceptable to the petitioner. 3. Hence, it is directed that the respondent No. 1 bank shall refund the amount of Rs. 1.50 crores to the petitioner in the petitioner’s account, within 2 weeks from today, details of which have been shared with the respondent No. 1. 4. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner, does not press the present petition and the same is accordingly disposed of. 5. The Court has not examined the merits/demerits of the present case. JASMEET SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026/AS This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:26:01