ORDER : 1. This order will dispose of Writ Petition Nos. 843 of 2021 and 2737 of 2021. 2. Heard Mr. Sujith Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioners and M. Narender Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. V.V.S.N. Raju, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State Bank of India (Bank). 3. In Writ Petition No. 843 of 2021, petitioner has prayed for the following relief: “...........to issue order or direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned possession notice dated 08.01.2021, issued by Respondent as illegal, arbitrary without following any procedure laid down in the Act, contrary to the rules and against the procedure laid down and principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the impugned possession notice dated 08.01.2021 issued by respondent-Bank...........” 4. It is stated that petitioner had availed initially financial assistance from the respondent-Bank to the tune of Rs. 10.00 crores in the year 2009 which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 27.00 Crores. 5. For various reasons, there was default on the part of the petitioner in repaying the above loan amount. Consequently, loan account of the petitioner was classified by the respondent as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). 6. Thereafter, respondent initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’). 7. On 06.01.2020 petitioner made an offer to the respondent for settlement of outstanding dues. After negotiations, respondent informed the petitioner vide letter dated 06.02.2020 that its offer to pay of Rs. 7.10 crores towards the outstanding dues was accepted by the appropriate authority of the respondent. However, the acceptance was subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter dated 06.02.2020, which is extracted hereunder: “(i) Total amount payable under the compromise settlement will be Rs. 7.10 crores (Rupees Seven crore Ten lakhs only). (ii) Initial deposit amount of Rs. 0.36 crores paid by you in ‘No-Lien’ account will be appropriated towards your compromise settlement amount. (iii) Upfront amount of Rs. 0.71 crores to be paid within 15 days from the date of this letter. (iv) The balance compromise settlement amount of Rs. 6.03 crores (Rupees Six Crore Three Lakhs only) has to be paid within 3 months from the date of this letter, i.e. Rs. 2.00 crores on or before 04.03.2020, Rs. 2.00 crores on or before 31.03.2020 and Rs. 2.03 crores on or before 04.05.2020. (iv) The balance compromise settlement amount of Rs. 6.03 crores (Rupees Six Crore Three Lakhs only) has to be paid within 3 months from the date of this letter, i.e. Rs. 2.00 crores on or before 04.03.2020, Rs. 2.00 crores on or before 31.03.2020 and Rs. 2.03 crores on or before 04.05.2020. In case of non-payment before 04.05.2020 interest @ prevailing MCLR, i.e. 7.85% (for 6 months period) on the balance amount paid after four months shall be charged from 30th day from the date of letter conveying sanction up to the date of final payment on or before 04.08.2020. Any extension beyond this will be subject to approval of competent authority. (v) The Bank will release its charge on the properties and other securities on payment of full compromise settlement amount along with delayed period interest, if any. (vi) Consent terms with default clause will be filed before Presiding Officer or Recovery Officer of DRT/Court for obtaining consent decree. (vii) Cases, if any, filed by the Company/Directors/Guarantors against the Bank are to be withdrawn immediately. (viii) On payment of full compromise amount, a Full Satisfaction memo will be filed before Recovery Officer/Presiding Officer of Hon’ble DRT, Hyderabad to withdraw the suit/recovery proceedings filed by the bank. (ix) If, for any reason, the compromise amount or any installment, as agreed, is not paid within scheduled period, the Bank reserves the right to cancel the compromise settlement and entire dues of the Bank as claimed in DRT in the original application/Recovery Certificate with interest and costs will become due for payment.” 8. Petitioner did not adhere to the time-frame for payment in terms of the compromise arrived at, as extracted above. 9. By letter dated 10.08.2020, respondent informed the petitioner that the time period for payment of balance compromise settlement amount of Rs. 4.53 Crores was extended up to 31.08.2020 which would incur delayed period interest as well as additional interest. 10. By reminder letter dated 22.12.2020, respondent informed the petitioner that if the remaining balance of the compromise amount was not paid on or before 31.12.2020, respondent would proceed under the SARFAESI Act. 11. Though, by letter dated 24.12.2020, petitioner sought for extension of time till 31.03.2021, the same was not accepted by the respondent. 12. 10. By reminder letter dated 22.12.2020, respondent informed the petitioner that if the remaining balance of the compromise amount was not paid on or before 31.12.2020, respondent would proceed under the SARFAESI Act. 11. Though, by letter dated 24.12.2020, petitioner sought for extension of time till 31.03.2021, the same was not accepted by the respondent. 12. By letter dated 06.01.2021, respondent informed the petitioner that though the period for payment of the settlement amount was extended from 31.08.2020 to 31.12.2020, no amount was paid by the petitioner. Since petitioner failed to pay the balance settlement amount of Rs. 4.25 Crores, respondent withdrew the compromise settlement offered by the petitioner which stood cancelled with effect from 06.01.2021. Thereafter, respondent issued the possession notice dated 08.01.2021, as per which the outstanding dues of the petitioner was quantified at Rs. 12,52,05,234.00 as on 30.12.2020. 13. At this stage, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 843 of 2021. 14. The second writ petition, viz. Writ Petition No. 2737 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to extend the time stipulated under OTS Scheme from 31.12.2020 to 30.06.2021 by enabling the petitioner to close the loan account by paying balance compromise amount of Rs. 4.25 crores by suspending the operation of impugned Letter dated 06.01.2021 bearing No. SARB:HYD:TMJ:1543 of the respondent-Bank pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such other and further order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 15. It may be mentioned that in Writ Petition No. 843 of 2021, this Court had passed an interim order on 12.01.2021 suspending the possession notice dated 08.01.2021. On 07.04.2021, both the above writ petitions were taken up together for consideration. The interim order passed on 12.01.2021 was extended till the next date of hearing, subject to payment of Rs. 2.00 Crores by the petitioner within four (04) weeks. It was clarified that in the event of default, the interim order would automatically stand vacated, and it would be open to the respondent to proceed further in accordance with law. 16. The interim order passed on 12.01.2021 was extended till the next date of hearing, subject to payment of Rs. 2.00 Crores by the petitioner within four (04) weeks. It was clarified that in the event of default, the interim order would automatically stand vacated, and it would be open to the respondent to proceed further in accordance with law. 16. Thereafter, petitioner filed Interlocutory Application No. 4 of 2021 in Writ Petition No. 2737 of 2021 praying for extension of time granted in the interim order passed on 12.01.2021 by enlarging the time stipulated in the order dated 07.04.2021 by a further period of four (04) weeks. 17. This Court by order dated 09.09.2021 took note of the fact that since learned counsel for the petitioner was holding Demand Draft of Rs. 2.00 Crores and was ready to file physical copy of the same, the interim order passed on 12.01.2021 was extended by enlarging time stipulated in the order dated 07.04.2021 by a further period of four weeks from 09.09.2021, subject to petitioner depositing the demand draft for Rs. 2.00 Crores with the respondent within one (01) week and the balance compromise settlement amount within four (04) weeks from 09.09.2021; further clarifying that in the event of noncompliance, it would be open to the respondent to proceed further in the matter. 18. In Interlocutory Application No. 5 of 2021 in Writ Petition No. 843 of 2021, petitioner made a prayer to direct the respondent to release the mortgage property to the petitioner for sale so as to pay the balance settlement amount. 19. By order dated 26.10.2021, this Court was not inclined to grant the said relief. However, having regard to the earlier orders passed by this Court, further four (04) weeks’ time was granted to the petitioner to pay the balance amount under the One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme, clarifying that in the event of default, the stay order would stand vacated. 20. Thereafter, it is stated that petitioner has paid on 23.11.2021 the entire outstanding dues as per the One-Time Settlement (OTS). 21. No doubt, petitioner has paid the settlement (OTS) amount of Rs. 7.10 Crores to the respondent within the time-line granted by this Court, though extended from time to time; nonetheless the fact remains that as per letter of respondent dated 06.01.2021, the compromise settlement has been cancelled by the respondent w.e.f. 06.01.2021. 21. No doubt, petitioner has paid the settlement (OTS) amount of Rs. 7.10 Crores to the respondent within the time-line granted by this Court, though extended from time to time; nonetheless the fact remains that as per letter of respondent dated 06.01.2021, the compromise settlement has been cancelled by the respondent w.e.f. 06.01.2021. Subsequent payments as per OTS have been made on orders of the Court. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions to contend that in an appropriate case, court can condone the delay in making payment by the borrower for giving effect to One Time Settlement scheme, viz. State Bank of India vs. Vijay Kumar, (2007) 11 SCC 369 , P. Vijayakumari vs. Indian bank, (2018) 14 SCC 735 and M/s. Sri. Yadadri Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Bank of India, Writ Petition No. 9408 of 2020, dated 02.07.2020. 23. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that stand of the respondent is very clear petitioner had failed to comply with its own settlement proposal, and despite extension of time by the respondent on two occasions, petitioner still failed to make payment for which respondent was compelled to cancel the compromise settlement on 06.01.2021, following which possession notice was issued on 08.01.2021. In the interregnum, petitioner has made the payments as per OTS on orders of the Court that too belatedly. Accordingly to him, while the outstanding dues of the petitioner in terms of the possession notice is Rs. 12,52,95,234.00 as on 30.12.2020, the settlement was arrived at for an amount of Rs. 7.10 crores. He has placed reliance on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited vs. Meenal Agarwal, Civil Appeal No. 7411 of 2021, dated 15.12.2021. 24. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rivals submission made at the Bar. 25. Insofar the compromise settlement i.e. the One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme is concerned, Supreme Court in Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited (supra) has held as follows: “11. The sum and substance of the aforesaid discussion would be that no writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing a financial institution/bank to positively grant the benefit of OTS to a borrower. The sum and substance of the aforesaid discussion would be that no writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing a financial institution/bank to positively grant the benefit of OTS to a borrower. The grant of benefit under the OTS is always subject to the eligibility criteria mentioned under the OTS Scheme and the guidelines issued from time to time. If the bank/financial institution is of the opinion that the loanee has the capacity to make the payment and/or that the bank/financial institution is able to recover the entire loan amount even by auctioning the mortgaged property/secured property, either from the loanee and/or guarantor, the bank would be justified in refusing to grant the benefit under the OTS Scheme. Ultimately, such a decision should be left to the commercial wisdom of the bank whose amount is involved and it is always to be presumed that the financial institution/bank shall take a prudent decision whether to grant the benefit or not under the OTS Scheme, having regard to the public interest involved and having regard to the factors which are narrated hereinabove.” 26. Thus, Supreme Court has held that no writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing a financial institution/bank to positively grant the benefit of One Time Settlement (OTS) to a borrower. Whether to grant benefit of OTS or not, is a decision which has to be left to the commercial wisdom of the bank/financial institution. 27. While petitioner has paid the compromise settlement amount on orders of the Court, the same undoubtedly were paid after cancellation of the OTS by the respondent. In any event, petitioner being the borrower, is bound to repay the loan amount to the respondent. It is trite that interim orders of the Court can confer no additional right on a litigant. 28. Therefore, and having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited (4 supra), any direction by the Court as sought by the petitioner would amount to a direction to the respondent to accept the OTS and positively grant the benefit thereunder to the petitioner which the Supreme Court has now disapproved. 29. Hence, we are not inclined to issue any such positive direction. 30. 29. Hence, we are not inclined to issue any such positive direction. 30. Notwithstanding the same, we are of the view that it is entirely between the petitioner and the respondent (being parties to the compromise settlement which was a private contract) to work on the same if permissible and agreeable to the parties, protecting and safeguarding the interest of both the parties. No interference by the Court is called for. 31. Insofar the possession notice dated 08.01.2021 is concerned, court is of the view that petitioner has got adequate and efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, even at this belated stage, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal for redressal of its grievance vis-a-vis the possession notice. 32. We express no opinion on merit as well as on limitation. All contentions are kept open. 33. Subject to the observations made above, writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs. 34. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in these writ petitions, shall stand closed.