L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a partnership firm. It was sanctioned a sum of Rs. 4. 06 lakhs in the year 1989 but was paid only a sum of Rs. 3. 5 lakhs in the year 1992. Certain irregularities took place in repayment of the amount. Ultimately in the year 2002, at the request of the petitioner, the matter was considered for One Time Settlement. Through proceedings dated 23-2-2000 the 2nd respondent offered a facility to the petitioner to liquidate its liability by paying a sum of Rs. 6,97,450. 00 subject to the condition that 35% of the same shall be paid on or before 31-3-2000 and that remaining amount shall be paid in five monthly instalments. The petitioner complied with the condition of payment of 35% namely Rs. 2,44,000. 00. The petitioner, however, delayed the payment of instalments. Though they were required to be cleared by 31-8-2000, the petitioner paid the entire amount only by 30-7-2002. Through letter dated 17-8-2002 the petitioner was Informed that the interest amount on delayed payment worked out to Rs. 2,03,196. 00. The petitioner challenges the same. ( 2 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the interest was calculated at contract rates and in accordance with the guidelines prescribed for one Time Settlement of the liabilities. It is also stated that strictly speaking the respondents were entitled to withdraw the facility extended to the petitioner and to take steps to recover the entire amount and instead, have continued the facility by levying the interest. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. ( 4 ) IT is a matter of record that the facility of One Time Settlement is extended through proceedings dated 23-2-2000. According to this, the petitioner was required to pay Rs. 6,97,450. 00 and out of this, 35% was to be paid instantly and the remaining amount was paid in five monthly instalments. There is no dispute that the petitioner paid Rs. 2,44,000. 00 representing 35% even by the date of the order. The respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner delayed the payment of the first two instalments by almost one year and the remaining three instalments by almost two years. It is stated that the interest was leviable from 1-11-1999 as indicated in the order dated 23-2-2000 itself. 2,44,000. 00 representing 35% even by the date of the order. The respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner delayed the payment of the first two instalments by almost one year and the remaining three instalments by almost two years. It is stated that the interest was leviable from 1-11-1999 as indicated in the order dated 23-2-2000 itself. ( 5 ) THE revised guidelines issued by the respondents on 2-8-1999 in the matter of one Time Settlement of loan account stipulates various conditions. Clause 11 thereof deals with the time frame. Sub para (1) thereof reads as under : the total amount of the crystalised liability shall be paid within a maximum time frame up to one year, subject to the condition that the same shall be paid together with further interest at prevailing rate from the cut-off date". ( 6 ) PLACING reliance on this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of crystalised liability shall carry interest only from the cut-off date, which invariably shall be the date, fixed for payment of instalments. ( 7 ) THE learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the cut-off date In the parlance of accountancy is the date on which the last instalment in the usual course, fell due. ( 8 ) A reading of the Clause 11 (1) discloses that the word further Interest had significance from the context of cut-off date. If the cut-off date is to be anteripr to the date on which the OTS Is extended the word further becomes a misfit. The only way to give meaning to it is to treat the cut-off date as the one subsequent to the OTS, which in turn shall be the date, fixed for payment of the instalments. Any other meaning does not appear to be In consonance with the very concept of One Time Settlement. The scheme is evolved with a view to scale down the hardship to the debtors and at the same time to ensure that the Financing Agency recovers as large amount as possible. If the cut-off date is transferred to a point of time anterior to the OTS, it runs to contrary to the spirit of the scheme. ( 9 ) ANOTHER angle from which it can be examined Is that with the extension of the facility of OTS the total amount becomes crystallized. If the cut-off date is transferred to a point of time anterior to the OTS, it runs to contrary to the spirit of the scheme. ( 9 ) ANOTHER angle from which it can be examined Is that with the extension of the facility of OTS the total amount becomes crystallized. The very expression does not permit the amount to be Increased further except In case where there occurs any default on the part of the borrower. Crystallization of ihe total amount on one hand and levying the further Interest on the other, anterior to the date; do not go together. Under these circumstances, the only harmonious way of reading the Clause is to the effect that the cut-off date referred to therein is the one fixed for the payment of corresponding instalments. Resultantly, the interest shall be levied only from such cut-off date, In the event of the borrower committing default. Therefore, the respondents shall be entitled to levy interest on the petitioner only for the period during which the instalments remained unpaid, after the dates fixed for payment of the same, ( 10 ) NOW conies the question of rate of interest. The respondents states that the interest was levied from certain period at 19% and the remaining period at 15% depending on the scaling down of interest. It is true that the Interest is always a matter of contract between the parties and the courts cannot interfere with the same. However, the liabilities under OTS stand on a different footing. With the extension of the facility of OTS, a different kind of contract comes into existence. The proceedings through which the petitioner was extended the facility of OTS did not specify the rate of interest nor do the guidelines provided for it. Therefore, a reasonable interest has to be levied. This Court finds that levy of 12% interest would protect the Interests of the respondents. ( 11 ) THE Writ Petition is accordingly allowed directing that the respondents shall be entitled to levy interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the instalments fixed under the OTS for the period between the date on which they were required to be paid and the date on which they were paid. ( 11 ) THE Writ Petition is accordingly allowed directing that the respondents shall be entitled to levy interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the instalments fixed under the OTS for the period between the date on which they were required to be paid and the date on which they were paid. The respondents shall issue a revised statement of account on these lines within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, they shall not take coercive steps against the petitioner. It is directed that the petitioner shall be liable to pay the interest so calculated within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the statement of account. In default, the amount shall carry Interest at 18% per annum from the date on which the petitioner fell due. No costs. Petition allowed.