JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - The Petitioner, a Private Limited Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Bhubaneswar has filed this writ application challenging Annexure-15 and seizure of the industrial unit by opposite party No. 1-IPICOL wherein it is intimated to the Petitioner that possession of the industrial unit has been taken over in exercise of powers u/s 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, the Petitioner having defaulted in payment of dues of the said Corporation. 2. Petitioner's industrial unit was established in the year 1983 and it was undertaking turnkey projects in collaboration with the Companies operating abroad and was also supplying engineering equipments to several steel plants. During the year 1992, the industrial unit faced serious set back due to unprecedented recession in steel sectors during 1995 to 2002. The industry became sick. Finding no other way, a rehabilitation proposal was placed before the financial institutions like opposite party No. 1-IPICOL, OSFC, Bank of India and the matter was also brought to the notice of the Industry Department as well as Reserve Bank of India. The proposal submitted by the Petitioner for rehabilitation was considered by the State Level Inter Institutional Committee. The matter was also taken up by the OSFC, IPICOL, Bank of India and the Industry Department in its joint meeting and ultimately it was resolved that the term loan of IPICOL and OSFC be re-phased, additional term loan be provided by OSFC and IPICOL and Bank of India will provide special limit to execute available orders with the Petitioner. It was also resolved that Bank of India will segregate the over drawn amount in the cash Credit Account as working capital term loan. On the basis of such resolution /decision, OSFC and IPICOL formulated rehabilitation packages in favour of the Petitioner and approved the same. Consequent upon approval of the rehabilitation packages, OSFC and IPICOL extended benefits under the packages whereas Bank of India did not extend its part of revival assistance. All efforts in persuading the Bank of India to extend its part under the rehabilitation package having failed, the matter was brought before this Court in a writ petition vide O. J. C. No. 3459 of 2002. While the said writ petition was pending, IPICOL invited a proposal for one time settlement from the Petitioner in response to the letter of the Petitioner dated 31-7-2002. While the said writ petition was pending, IPICOL invited a proposal for one time settlement from the Petitioner in response to the letter of the Petitioner dated 31-7-2002. At the stage IPICOL was agreeable to settle the amount under the OTS Scheme for Rs. 115 lakh approximately whereas the Petitioner was willing to settle the account on payment of Rs. 77 lakh approximately. Correspondences were made on this issue between the Petitioner and IPICOL and ultimately, the industrial unit was taken over by the IPICOL u/s 29 of the SFC Act. 3. Shri A. K. Parija, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner drew attention of the Court to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 in Misc. Case No. 12286 of 2004. It was contended by the learned senior counsel that as is evident from the said affidavit, the loan outstanding as on 15-8-2004 was Rs. 69.80 lakh whereas arrear interest had become Rs. 412.51 lakh. The first proposal for OTS having not come through, the subsequent proposal for settlement of account under the OTS was considered by the IPICOL taking into consideration account position as on 15-8-2004. As is evident from the said affidavit filed by opposite party No. 1, the OTS value intimated by the opposite party No. 1 to the Petitioner on the basis of the subsequent proposal was Rs. 160.29 lakh whereas the minimum OTS amount under the approved Scheme was assessed at Rs. 129.18 lakh. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, by interim order dated 17-5-2006 the Petitioner had already taken the industrial unit and had deposited a sum of Rs. 160.29 lakh and, therefore, the minimum OTS amount being Rs. 129.18 lakh, the differential amount should be paid back to the Petitioner. Shri Pangari, the learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1 submitted that considering the account position as on 15-8-2004 the Petitioner was intimated that opposite party No. 1 is agreeable for settlement of account on payment of Rs. 160.29 lakhs as OTS value and the opposite party No. 1 had sacrificed interest to the tune of Rs. 332.45 lakh. Even the minimum OTS amount approved under the Scheme i.e. Rs. 129.18 lakh was not paid by the Petitioner and in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 17-5-2006, the Petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 160.29 lakhs as OTS value and the opposite party No. 1 had sacrificed interest to the tune of Rs. 332.45 lakh. Even the minimum OTS amount approved under the Scheme i.e. Rs. 129.18 lakh was not paid by the Petitioner and in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 17-5-2006, the Petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 160.29 lakh only on 1-6-2006. Therefore, the Petitioner having not paid even the minimum OTS amount approved under the Scheme and intimated to the Petitioner in December, 2004, the said OTS proposal failed and on the basis of the highest bid received by opposite party No. 1 in an auction, the value of the property has been assessed at Rs. 230 lakh and the share of IPICOL being 69.69%, the total amount payable by the Petitioner comes to Rs. 160.29 lakh, by order of this Court the Petitioner having paid the said amount and the earlier OTS proposal having failed, 'the claim of the Petitioner for refund of the balance amount is unsustainable. 4. Though several allegations have been made in the writ petition and counter allegations made in the counter-affidavit and several interim orders have been passed by this Court, it may not be necessary to go into all those facts in view of what has been stated in the aforesaid affidavit filed by opposite party No. 1 in relation to the issue. As is evident from the said affidavit, the outstanding position after taking into account all payments made by the Petitioner as on 15-8-2004 prior to OTS was Rs. 482.31 lakh which includes the loan outstanding and arrear interest. In addition to the above, IDBI Seed capital position, if taken into consideration, the total outstanding due against the Petitioner was Rs. 492.74 lakh. While considering the OTS proposal, the IPICOL agreed to settle the account for Rs. 160.29 lakh thereby sacrificing the interest to the extent of Rs. 332.45 lakh. There is no dispute that this figure had been intimated to the Petitioner, but no payments were made by the Petitioner in terms of the approved Scheme. Now much reliance is placed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner on the minimum OTS amount approved under the Scheme as Rs. 129.18 lakh. The Petitioner having deposited in pursuance of the interim order of this Court Rs. Now much reliance is placed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner on the minimum OTS amount approved under the Scheme as Rs. 129.18 lakh. The Petitioner having deposited in pursuance of the interim order of this Court Rs. 160.29 lakh, the differential amount should be refunded to the Petitioner. 5. It is a fact that the said affidavit discloses the minimum OTS amount approved under the Scheme to be Rs. 129.18 lakh. It is also a fact that the Petitioner did not pay the amount within the stipulated time. The intimation regarding approval of the OTS amount had been given to the Petitioner in December, 2004, but no payments were made by the Petitioner. Therefore, the OTS proposal submitted by the Petitioner and approved by opposite Party No. 1 settling the account even at the minimum OTS amount of Rs. 129.18 lakhs did not materialse. Thereafter, the industrial unit was put to auction and the highest bid received by IPICOL was for Rs. 230 lakh. The share of IPICOL being 69.69%, it was to get Rs. 160.29 lakh from out of the said sum towards its share. Therefore, taking this fact into consideration this Court while releasing the industrial unit in favour of the Petitioner directed for payment of Rs. 160.29 lakh by the Petitioner and the said amount had been deposited. The earlier OTS proposal having failed and the value of the property having been assessed on the basis of the auction price, we find no justification to accept the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is only liable to pay Rs. 129.18 lakh, which was the minimum OTS amount approved under the Scheme. 6. It was also contended by Shri Parija, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner that once the proposal of the Petitioner is considered under the OTS Scheme, the valuation of the property has to be done accordingly in terms of the Scheme and value of the property under the Scheme cannot be assessed on the basis of an auction. We are unable to accept such contention considering the fact that the Petitioner did not pay even the minimum OTS amount under the approved Scheme in December, 2004 and only when this Court passed an order for release of the industrial unit on payment of Rs. We are unable to accept such contention considering the fact that the Petitioner did not pay even the minimum OTS amount under the approved Scheme in December, 2004 and only when this Court passed an order for release of the industrial unit on payment of Rs. 160.29 lakh, the said amount was deposited on 1-6-2006. The OTS proposal submitted by the Petitioner and approved by opposite party No. 1 having not materialised, the Petitioner cannot now take recourse to OTS Scheme and claim that the valuation of the property should have been done in terms of the said Scheme. We find no irregularity or illegality on the part of opposite party No. 1 in demanding Rs. 160.29 lakh solely on the basis of the offer received by opposite party No. l in pursuance of an auction. 7. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly dismiss the same. C.R. Dash, J.: 8. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed