- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2622 WP No. 32280 of 2018 C/W WP No. 104118 of 2015 WP No. 103732 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 32280 OF 2018 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 104118 OF 2015 (GM-CPC) WRIT PETITION NO. 103732 OF 2016 IN WP No. 32280/2018 BETWEEN: 1. M/S TUNGABHADRA PULP & BOARD MILLS LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SUSHIL R MORAKA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O GROUND FLOOR MORAKA HOUSE, 24B, DAHANUKAR MARG MUMBAI - 400 026. 2. SHRI BHARAT REDDY S/O SURYANARAYAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 3. SHRI SHARATH REDDY S/O SURYANARAYAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, BOTH R/AT NO. 2/12, NEHRU COLONY, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2622 WP No. 32280 of 2018 C/W WP No. 104118 of 2015 WP No. 103732 of 2016 2ND CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, BELLARY - 583 103. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PROF RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. BRIJESH PATIL AND SRI. V R SARATHY.,ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA BY ITS ASSITANT GENERAL MANAGER ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH 2ND FLOOR, A BLOCK, BKG COMPLEX MYSORE BANK CIRCLE, AVENUE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. 2. STATE BANK OF INDIA BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER HOSPET BRANCH HOSPET - 583 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR A.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2017 IN TUNGABHADRA/FILES/OTS PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, ASSET RECOVERY MANAGEMENT BRANCH, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2622 WP No. 32280 of 2018 C/W WP No. 104118 of 2015 WP No. 103732 of 2016 IN WP NO. 104118/2015 BETWEEN: 1. TUNGABHADRA PULP AND BOARD MILLS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SUSHIL R MORAKA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O GROUND FLOOR MORAKA HOUSE, 24B, DAHANUKAR MARG MUMBAI - 400 026. 2. BHARAT REDDY S/O. SURYANARAYAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O. NO.2/12, NEHRU COLONY, 2ND CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI. 3. SHARATH REDDY S/O. SURYANARAYAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. NO.2/12, NEHRU COLONY, 2ND CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PROF RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF BANK OF MYSORE BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ZONAL OFFICE, SIR SIDDAPPA KAMBLI ROAD, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2622 WP No. 32280 of 2018 C/W WP No. 104118 of 2015 WP No. 103732 of 2016 HUBBALLI-580 025. 2. STATE BANK OF MYSORE HOSPETE BRANCH, HOSPETE. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.K. HEGDE., ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ONE TIME SETTLEMENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A DATED 03.04.2001 AND IMPLEMENT THE SCHEME AS PER GUIDELINES OF RBI DATED 03.09.2005 PRODUCED AT IN WP NO. 103732/2016 BETWEEN: 1. BHARAT REDDY S/O SURYANARAYAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 2. SHARATH REDDY S/O SURYANARAYAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS BOTH RESIDING AT NO.2/12 NEHRU COLONY 2ND CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR BALLARI-583 103. 3. M/S TUNGABHADRA PULP and BOARD MILLS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SUSHIL R. MORAKA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCU.BUSINESS R/O GROUND FLOOR - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2622 WP No. 32280 of 2018 C/W WP No. 104118 of 2015 WP No. 103732 of 2016 MORAKA HOUSE, 24 B, DAHANUKAR MARG MUMBAI-400 026. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PROF RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ZONAL OFFICE SIR. SIDDAPPA KAMBLI ROAD HUBLI-580 025. 2. STATE BANK OF MYSORE BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER HOSPET BRANCH HOSPET-583 201. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S K HEGDE ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2016 IN DCP.NO.1420 IN OA.NO.458/1995 PASSED BY THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION DATED 24.03.2016 FILED BY THE 1ST AND 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DRT AT VIDE ANNEXURE-E. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2622 WP No. 32280 of 2018 C/W WP No. 104118 of 2015 WP No. 103732 of 2016 ORAL ORDER 1. (a) W.P.No.32280/2018 is filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs: ''i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.12.2017 in TUNGABHADRA/FILES/OTS passed by the passed by the Respondent No.1 Assistant General Manager, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Bengaluru Vide Annexure-J; ii) DECLARE that the loan account of the Petitioner No. 1 stands fully and finally settled and closed by virtue of the payment made of the entire One Time Settlement Amount vide letter dated 18.10.2017 (Annexure G1) issued by the Petitioner and vide letter dated 24.10.2017 issued by the Respondent No. 1 (Annexure H). ⅲ) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to take all steps as required by law to release the mortgaged properties and to hand over all documents of title that are held by the Respondents within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court. iv) Grant such other reliefs as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.'' 1. (b) W.P.No.104118/2015 is filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs: '' i) Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus, direction or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to act in accordance with the One Time Settlement as per Annexure-A dated 03/04/2001 and implement the scheme as per guidelines of RBI dated 03/09/2005 produced at Annexure-C in the interest of justice and equity. ii) Grant such other reliefs as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.'' 1. (c) W.P.No.103732/2016 is filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs: ''a. set aside the order dated 29.03.2016 in DCP No. 1420 in O.A. No. 458/1995 passed by the recovery officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal Bangalore Vide Annexure-A and allow the application dated 24-03- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2622 WP No. 32280 of 2018 C/W WP No. 104118 of 2015 WP No. 103732 of 2016 2016 filed by the 1st and 2nd petitioner before the Recovery Officer, DRT at Annexure'E' b. PASS any such other order/s with costs in the interests of justice and equity.'' 2. An application had been filed by the State Bank of Mysore contending that the defendants therein, namely Tungabhadra Pulp and Board Mills Ltd., the petitioner herein, had availed credit facilities and had even hypothecated its assets. Default on the part of the borrower and its Directors had resulted in initiating the proceedings. The total due as on the date of filing of the said application was Rs.21,07,507.47/- with interest, current and future at 18% per annum, compounded quarterly. 3. By order dated 12.02.1999, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru, allowed the said application filed by State Bank of Mysore, directing issuance of the recovery certificate as prayed for. In furtherance to the said order, recovery certificate dated 20.05.2001 at Annexure-R5 was issued, the schedule of the recovery certificate reads as under:- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2622 WP No. 32280 of 2018 C/W WP No. 104118 of 2015 WP No. 103732 of 2016 SCHEDULE OF THE RECOVERY CERTIFICATE SL.NO. ITEM OF COSTS AMOUNT 1. AMOUNT DETERMINED 21,07,507.47 2. INTEREST FROM SUIT DATE TO ORDER @ 18% P.A.C. QLY. 02-08-91 TO 12.02.199 59,84,300.03 3. APPLICATION FEE 2,10,751.00 4. PROCESS FEE 700.00 5. ADVOCATE FEE 7,500.00 TOTAL 83,10,758.50 4. Thus, the amount due as on the date of the order dated 12.12.1999, is calculated in the certificate dated 20.05.2001 which amounted to Rs.83,10,758.50/-. It appears that certain correspondence ensued between the petitioner- borrower and the Respondent-Bank for the purpose of resolving the matter through One Time Settlement, which had also resulted the petitioner herein approaching this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.104118/2015 seeking direction to implement Scheme as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India dated 03.09.2005. This Court vide an interim order dated 10.03.2016 directed the petitioner to deposit the sum of Rs.80,00,000/- within a period of two weeks and the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2622 WP No. 32280 of 2018 C/W WP No. 104118 of 2015 WP No. 103732 of 2016 respondent-Bank was directed to receive the same and not to take any steps for auctioning the property of the petitioner. 5. By another order dated 26.04.2016, this Court in WP No.103732/2015 c/w WP 104118/2015 had directed the petitioner to deposit additional sum of Rs.20,00,000/- in addition to said sum of Rs.80,00,000/- which was ordered to be deposited earlier. It is submitted that petitioner had paid a total sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/- as on 19.07.2018. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of on 12.04.2018, with the following: ORDER ''(i) The respondent Bank shall consider the amicable settlement claim of the petitioners herein for an amicable settlement within the parameters of the Scheme dated 03.09.2005 promulgated by the Reserve Bank of India, as per Annexure 'C' to the Writ Petition, only if the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh) only with the respondent Bank within two weeks from today; (ii) The parties have agreed and of undertaken that deposit Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) only made by the petitioners with the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru, pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 26.04.2016 and the aforesaid sum of Rs.50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Lakh) only shall be refunded without any interest to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in Writ Petition Nos. 103732-734 of 2016 if the intended amicable settlement mentioned above does not materialise; (iii) The respondent Bank shall not initiate or continue any coercive measures against the petitioners herein till after the claim for amicable settlement under the OTS Scheme in question is rejected and also the amount in deposit is refunded to the concerned petitioners. (iv) Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach this Court оr any other jurisdictional Court for prosecuting any fresh cause of action if and when accrues. (v) All the Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of;'' - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2622 WP No. 32280 of 2018 C/W WP No. 104118 of 2015 WP No. 103732 of 2016 6. As against the said order, The respondent-Bank apparently preferred an appeal in W.A.No.100205/2018. In meanwhile, petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.1/2018 in the disposed of writ petition seeking to recall its earlier order in the light of a communication that was issued by the respondent-Bank on 27.09.2017 as per Annexure-G, in terms of which, the respondent-Bank had offered one time settlement at Rs.11,16,906/-. It appears said offer was accepted by the petitioner by communicating the same on 18.10.2017 and making the payment by way of demand draft for Rs.8,93,524/-. Subsequently, by another communication dated 24.10.2017 produced at Annexure-H, the respondent-Bank had called upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.11,16,906/- as one time settlement scheme with a condition that a consent term with default clause to be filed before the Presiding Officer of DRT/Court for obtaining consent decree. Things stood thus, by another communication dated 13.12.2017, respondent-Bank sought to withdraw its offer for One Time Settlement as made in its letters dated 27.09.2017 as well as 24.10.2017. On the premise that the said offers were made under bona-fide - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2622 WP No. 32280 of 2018 C/W WP No. 104118 of 2015 WP No. 103732 of 2016 intention of settling the amount. However, it was recovered certain claims including a third party claims which were pending. As such, one time settlement could not be accepted. Withdrawal of the offer as above constrained the petitioner to file an application I.A.No.1/2018 in the disposed of writ petition in W.P.Nos.103732-34/2016 seeking recalling of the order dated 12.04.2018 passed thereunder to which the respondent- Bank had apparently indicated its 'no objection'. Accordingly, on 31.07.2018, the said petition was recalled and the said petition was restored with the following: ORDER ON I.Α.ΝΟ.1/2018 '' The petitioners have filed this application seeking recall of the judgment and order dated 12.04.2018 whereby the writ petitions were partly allowed relegating the parties to the negotiating table. The respondent Bank has laid a challenge to the said judgment and order by filing W.A.No.100205/2018; the matter is yet to be posted for admission. The writ petitioners application which involved OTS invitation to treat, offer and the alleged acceptance that came to be rescinded naught by the letter of the Bank sent to the petitioner No.3 Tungabhadra Pulps Private Ltd., on 13.12.2017. Learned Senior Advocate, Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa appearing for the petitioners submits that the transaction in question was not brought to the notice of this Court when the matter was finally heard and disposed of by the judgment and order now sought to be recalled. The learned panel counsel for the Bank submits that it is true that the said transaction was not notified to the Bank since the third petitioner was served with the letter dated 13.12.2017 against the acknowledgment of receipt and non-bringing of the said nor relevant. However, he does not oppose the application whereby the judgment and order dated 12.04.2018 is now sought to be recalled. The Panel Advocate for the Bank puts a caveat that the Bank will have no objection if the order being recalled is innocuous, to which the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa readily concedes. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2622 WP No. 32280 of 2018 C/W WP No. 104118 of 2015 WP No. 103732 of 2016 In the above circumstances, I.A.No.1/2018 stands allowed; the judgment and order dated 12.04.2018 whereby petitions were finally disposed off, stand recalled and the Writ Petitions stand restored to the Board for final disposal in accordance with law. Learned Panel Advocate for the Bank fairly submits that he has no objections for restoring the case in W.P. No. 104118/2015 also by treating this application as having been made there also. It is made clear that the recall of the judgment and order in question will not prejudice any of the contentions of any of the parties to the writ petitions and that no opinion is expressed on the contentions taken up by the petitioners either in the writ petitions or in the application.'' 7. It is these factual situations, which has led the petitioner to file these three petitions. 8. Sri. Prof. Ravi Varma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner extensively taking this Court through the records submitted that, the respondent-Bank having made representation by way of Communications dated 27.09.2017 and 24.10.2017 and having accepted the amount as demanded by them could not have withdrawn the said scheme by the communication dated 13.12.2017. In any event, withdrawal of the offer of one time settlement by the respondent-Bank is unilateral and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner for being heard. He also points out that though the recovery certificate was issued by virtue of the indulgence shown by this Court, in its interim orders produced at Annexure-C, the petitioner had paid an aggregate sum of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2622 WP No. 32280 of 2018 C/W WP No. 104118 of 2015 WP No. 103732 of 2016 Rs.1,20,00,000/- as on 30.04.2016, indicating its bonafides in settling the matter, which aspect of the matter was taken note of by this Court in its earlier order passed in W.P.Nos.103732- 734/2016 dated 12.04.2018. Therefore, he insists that the respondent-Bank be directed to reconsider the one time settlement process in terms of the scheme dated 03.09.2005. Hence, seeks for allowing of these petitions. 9. Per contra, Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Bank at the outset submits that the reliance being placed on by the petitioner heavily on the communications dated 27.09.2017 and 24.10.2017 is of no consequences inasmuch as the said communications were issued by State Bank of India, which had taken over by State Bank of Mysore, Hospet Branch on 01.04.2017 without being aware of the events that had transpired before its taking over. He read the contents of communications dated 27.09.2017 and 24.10.2017 to indicate that these communications are issued by the State Bank of India apparently under bonafide belief of there being pending claims by the Bank, without having regard to the fact that petitioner had already suffered an order of recovery at the hands of Debt Recovery Tribunal as noted - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2622 WP No. 32280 of 2018 C/W WP No. 104118 of 2015 WP No. 103732 of 2016 above. He submits withdrawal of the offer by communication dated 13.12.2017 is on State Bank of India realizing and learning about the events which had transpired before issuing those certificates. Therefore, he submits that petitioner cannot take benefit of the said communications. 10. Referring to the Scheme dated 03.09.2005, which is being relied upon by the petitioner for the relief as sought for in the W.P.No.104118/2015, he submits that the said scheme is not applicable to the case of this nature inasmuch as a recovery certificate has already been issued in this regard. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of X-calibre Knives Private Limited and Another Vs. State Bank of India reported (2005) 10 SCC 265 and submits that under the identical factual situation of the matter, the Hon'ble Apex Court has declined to show any favour to the petitioner therein who had sought for one time settlement of the matter after passing of the order by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Further, he relies upon the judgment of Shanti Jaiswal and Another Vs. State Bank of India reported in (2014) SCC Online Jhar 1825; Auto Engineering Vs. State Bank of India reported in (2019) SCC Online Jhar 584 to contend - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2622 WP No. 32280 of 2018 C/W WP No. 104118 of 2015 WP No. 103732 of 2016 that once the recovery certificate is issued there is no question of offering the one time settlement. He also relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bijnor Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., and others Vs. Meenal Agarwal and others reported in (2023) 2 SCC 805 to contend that the Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the Bank to positively consider grant for benefit of one time settlement and the petitioner cannot as a matter of right claim relief of one time settlement. Thus, seeks for dismissal of these petitions. 11. Heard and perused the material placed on record. 12. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner who had availed financial assistance from the erstwhile State Bank of Mysore, suffered an Order dated 12.02.1999 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in O.A.No.458/1995, which culminated in issuance of a recovery certificate dated 20.05.2001 for a sum of Rs.83,10,758.50/-. The said order dated 12.02.1999 and the recovery certificate have not been set aside, varied or reversed till date. It appears when the Bank sought to auction - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2622 WP No. 32280 of 2018 C/W WP No. 104118 of 2015 WP No. 103732 of 2016 the secured assets. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in W.P.No.104118/2015 and petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.No.103732-34/2016 claim that they have purchased the secured assets and approached this Court seeking relief to issue the direction to the respondent-Bank to accept the one time settlement. This Court on earlier occasion as already noted above had allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.104118/2015, which was recalled and the matter was restored. 13. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, the Scheme dated 03.05.2005 has provided settlement formula which needs to be applied in the facts of the present case particularly in the light of direction issued by this court. On a perusal of the said document i.e., Annexure-C, which indicates the guidelines on one time settlement scheme are meant for SME accounts. In other words, the said guidelines are provided for Small and Medium Enterprises accounts. Nothing is brought on record to indicate that the petitioner herein is an entity to be considered as “Small and Medium Enterprises “. It would be beneficial to refer to the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. In terms of which, an entity claiming benefits under - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2622 WP No. 32280 of 2018 C/W WP No. 104118 of 2015 WP No. 103732 of 2016 the said Act it requires to be classified as a medium enterprise, as provided under the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. 14. In the absence of any material being brought on record to show that the petitioner herein satisfies the requirement of a Small and Medium Enterprises, this Court is of the considered view that the Scheme at the outset which is made applicable only to Small and Medium Enterprises accounts may not be made applicable to the instant case as being insisted by the Petitioner. 15. Notwithstanding the above, guideline No.2A[1]C reads as follows: '' These guidelines will cover the cases on which the Bank have initiated action and Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and also cases pending before Courts/DRTs/BIFR, subject to consent decree being obtained by the Court/DRTs/BIFR.'' 16. Even on this count, the present case may not fall for consideration under the said guidelines. As already noted above, the then State Bank of Mysore has already obtained an order and recovery certificate dated 12.02.1999 and 20.05.2001 respectively. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2622 WP No. 32280 of 2018 C/W WP No. 104118 of 2015 WP No. 103732 of 2016 17. Thus on these two counts the scheme would not come for any rescue to the petitioner. Even, if the petitioner makes out a case for consideration of settlement under one time settlement scheme, once an order allowing the application of recovery of amount culminates in the issuance of recovery certificate, there is no scope for consideration of the case of petitioner on one time settlement as a matter of right. 18. This settled position of law has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of X-calibre Knives Private Limited (Supra), which reads as under:. '' 6. The stand taken by the respondent Bank is reinforced by the clarification issued by Reserve Bank of India in its communication dated 7-10-2003 that the guidelines were not applicable to cases where decrees/necessary orders have already been passed by the Tribunal. 7. We cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the guidelines should not (sic) be made applicable to the cases in which the Bank has already been approached for settlement even before the revised guidelines came into force. In fact, the earlier representations were rejected on the ground that the requirements contemplated by the guidelines which then existed, were not fulfilled.'' 19. For the aforesaid reason and analysis, this Court do not see any reasons to interfere with the Order in W.P.No.103732/2016, which is dismissed. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2622 WP No. 32280 of 2018 C/W WP No. 104118 of 2015 WP No. 103732 of 2016 20. As regards the relief sought in writ petition No.32280/2018, questioning the withdrawal of one time settlement offer, and on perusal of the communications dated 27.09.2017 and 24.10.2017 indicate that the same were issued by State Bank of India, which admittedly had taken over the State Bank of Mysore, effective from 01.04.2017, without being present to the fact of the State Bank of Mysore already having obtained the recovery certificate. The language employed in these communications would indicate that the State Bank of India has, in its routine, issued these communications taking the details of the ledger outstanding as on 31.03.2017, declaring the account of the petitioner as non-performing asset. Though, in the communication dated 13.12.2017, no specific reason is assigned in the nature of an order already having been passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the said admitted fact cannot take away the reason for withdrawal. 21. The respondent-State Bank of India, also cannot offer for one time settlement, even if it intended, once it had obtained an order of recovery without the same having been set-aside or reversed in the manner known to law. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2622 WP No. 32280 of 2018 C/W WP No. 104118 of 2015 WP No. 103732 of 2016 22. This Court, therefore finds considerable force in submission made by learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent. That the said offers of one time settlement as found in Annexures-G, G1 may have to be read as having issued without being present to the recovery certificate already issued and nothing more. 23. The other contentions regarding petitioners not having been given an opportunity of being heard before issuing the communication at 13.12.2017 also may not arise for consideration as a right of being heard is available only if there exists a legally enforceable right. 24. It is settled position of law that, one time settlement, cannot be asserted as a matter of right. It is only subject to satisfaction of the eligibility criteria. Nonetheless, in the instant case, recovery certificate already having been issued after the petitioner having contested the matter cannot claim that it was not heard before the issuance of the communication dated 13.02.2017. For the said reasons, this Court do not see any reason to quash the said communication dated 13.12.2017 as sought for. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2622 WP No. 32280 of 2018 C/W WP No. 104118 of 2015 WP No. 103732 of 2016 25. Petition in W.P.No.103732/2016, petitioners have sought for setting aside of the Order dated 29.03.2016 passed in O.A.No.458/1995, on the premise that the recovery officer have not consider the objections of the petitioners. 26. Since there is a statutory provision of appeal provided thereunder, petitioners are at liberty to seek such remedy as may be available under law, if so advised. 27. With the above observation, these writ petitions are disposed of. 28. It is made clear notwithstanding the dismissal and disposal of the writ petitions as above, it is open for the petitioners as well as the respondent-Bank, in the interest of recovering the public money to arrive at mutually amicable terms of settlement. This shall however not be construed as indulgence shown by this Court. It is only an option left to the discretion of the parties. 29. Petitions are disposed off accordingly. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7