ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2.The appellants, who defaulted in the payment of loan to the respondent a Bank, approached the Bank for settlement in terms of the One-Time Settlement Scheme evolved by the Bank in accordance with the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. The appellants moved the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for a direction to consider their representation. That was a stage when the recovery proceedings were set in motion pursuant to the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The High Court having directed to deposit a sum of Rs 25 lakhs gave an interim direction to consider the appellants representation. The respondent Bank then sent a reply on 23-72003 to the appellants stating that the appellants were liable to pay an amount of Rs 1,21,46,273.84p. as on 20-7-2003, that the guidelines relating to onetime settlement have no application to the instant case and that after taking into account certain relevant factors, the respondent Bank was prepared toreceive a sum of Rs 1.10 crores payable as per the instalments specified in the communication. Thereafter, the High Court passed the impugned order almost in terms of the offer made by the Bank as per its communication. The High Court gave liberty to the appellants to accept the offer made by the Bank so that the final settlement regarding payment of loan arrears could be arrived at. Aggrieved by this order, the present SLP/appeal is filed. 3. We are unable to accept the contention of the appellants that the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India come into play and that the Bank was unjustified in not settling the dues in accordance with the revised guidelines. The guidelines of 29-1-2003 lay down: "These guidelines will cover cases on which the banks have initiated e action under the Securitisation 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 from the courts/DRTs/BIFR." 4. It is not in dispute that the Debts Recovery Tribunal has already passed an order on 31-1-2002 determining the sum payable by the appellant and, f thereafter, issued a recovery certificate also by the time the matter was taken up for consideration in terms of the revised guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India. It is not in dispute that the Debts Recovery Tribunal has already passed an order on 31-1-2002 determining the sum payable by the appellant and, f thereafter, issued a recovery certificate also by the time the matter was taken up for consideration in terms of the revised guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India. However, our attention has been drawn to a letter sent by the Bank on 25-2-2003 in which it was stated that the dues were eligible for settlement under the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India on the terms specified in the letter. In the letter it is stated that the minimum amount g required to be paid by the appellants is Rs 42,97,419.99 (being the outstanding balance as on 31-3-2000). By this letter the respondent Bank proceeded on the basis that the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India could be applied to the appellants case. It is apparent that the said letter was issued without being aware of the stage of the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Para 2 of the said letter reads as follows: "Since your case is pending before court/DRT/BIFR, any settlement will be subject to consent decree/necessary orders from the court! DRT/BIFR and this letter is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Bank in the said proceedings." 5. Therefore, it is obvious that the letter was issued without being aware of the factual position in regard to the decision of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the issuance of recovery certificate. 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. 8. We cannot, therefore, grant any relief to the appellants beyond what has already been granted by the Bank and which has been reiterated by the High Court. In fact, the earlier representations were rejected on the ground that the requirements contemplated by the guidelines which then existed, were not fulfilled. 8. We cannot, therefore, grant any relief to the appellants beyond what has already been granted by the Bank and which has been reiterated by the High Court. However, in view of the pendency of the litigation which the appellant has been bona fide pursuing, we do not think it just and proper to burden the appellants with further interest from the date of the communication sent by the respondent Bank or the order of the High Court passed subsequent thereto. Now we are inclined to grant instalments for payment of Rs 1.10 crores at this point of time. 9. In the circumstances, we dispose of the appeal with a direction that if a sum of Rs 85 lakhs (Rs 1.10 crores minus Rs 25 lakhs already paid) is paid within a period of three months from today, the outstanding loan amount shall be deemed to have been cleared in full and recovery proceedings should then stop; otherwise, the respondent Bank is free to recover the amount as per the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal.