JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to regularize the One Time Settlement (in short “OTS”) arrived between the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 4 vide letter no. UCO/Giridih/Settlement/2019-20 dated 30th September, 2019 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), whereby a sum of Rs. 3,70,000/- was decided to be the settlement amount payable by the petitioner no. 1 subject to adjustment of upfront amount of Rs. 40,000/- paid on the said date i.e. 30th September, 2019 and on payment of rest amount i.e. Rs. 3,30,000/- along with recovery charge by 15th November, 2019. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent-Bank to accept the remaining amount of OTS as well as interest on the outstanding amount under the OTS for the default period as per the norms of the Reserve Bank of India. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in pursuance of the OTS, as communicated to the petitioner no. 1 vide letter dated 30th September, 2019 issued under the signature of the Senior Manager, UCO Bank, Giridih Branch-the respondent no. 4, the petitioners deposited Rs. 40,000/- as an upfront amount on the same day, however, due to financial crunch being faced by the petitioners owing to COVID-19 pandemic, they could not deposit the rest amount of Rs. 3,30,000/- on or before 15th November, 2019 in terms with the said OTS. Nevertheless, the petitioners deposited Rs. 1,55,000/- lacs on different dates after 15th November, 2019 which was the last date of depositing the balance amount under the OTS. Considering the bona fide of the petitioners that they intend to clear the loan amount, the respondent-Bank may be directed to accept the balance amount within a reasonable period in view of the OTS. 5. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank on the contrary submits that the petitioners have failed to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 3,30,000/- in view of the OTS communicated to the petitioner no. 1 vide letter dated 30th September, 2019 within the time frame i.e. 15th November, 2019 and, hence, the said OTS has lost its force. 5. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank on the contrary submits that the petitioners have failed to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 3,30,000/- in view of the OTS communicated to the petitioner no. 1 vide letter dated 30th September, 2019 within the time frame i.e. 15th November, 2019 and, hence, the said OTS has lost its force. If the petitioners have deposited any amount against their loan account after 15th November, 2019, the same cannot be said to have been deposited in terms with the said OTS, rather the same is required to be adjusted against the outstanding liability in the loan account. 6. On consideration of rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that admittedly the petitioners failed to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 3,30,000/- by 15th November, 2019 which was the last date for payment of the same under the OTS communicated to the petitioner no. 1 vide letter dated 30th September, 2019. Hence, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank that the terms of the OTS dated 30th September, 2019 lost its force after 15th November, 2019. If the petitioners have deposited certain amount as claimed by them against the loan account, the same cannot be treated to be the part of the OTS. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Bank of India and Another vs. Panchanan Subudhi, 2010 (15) SCC 552 has held as under:- “7. In our view, the approach adopted by the High Court was clearly erroneous. When the respondent failed to abide by the terms of one-time settlement, there was no justification for the High Court to entertain the writ petition and that too by ignoring the fact that a statutory alternative remedy was available to the respondent under Section 17 of the Act.” 7. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition as the petitioners have failed to make out any case requiring interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The petitioners are, however, at liberty to take alternative recourse against the action of the respondent-Bank as permitted under law. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. I.A. No. 2823 of 2021 also stands dismissed.