ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondents Bank in not considering the representation dated 30.03.2021, requesting to accept the balance payment of One Time Settlement (OTS) vide Lr.No. 0206/45/385, dated 06.01.2020, NPA Account No. 020630100014879, and under unprecedented COVID-19 crisis as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to accept balance amount of OTS along with interest for delayed six months period immediately setting aside the letter dated 31.03.2021 wherein the respondents claimed Rs.99.04 Lakhs in stead of Rs.66.22 Lakhs of balance amount of OTS by disposing the representation dated 30.03.2021. 2. Heard Sri Sudharshan Malugari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. V. Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. FACTS OF THE CASE: 3. The petitioner herein had availed term loan of Rs.180.00 Lakhs from the respondents Bank for the purpose of construction of Rural Godown at Nadigonda Village, Raghunathpally Mandal, Warangal District and committed default in repayment of said term loan in accordance with the agreed terms and the account of the petitioner was declared as NPA on 30.09.2017. Thereafter, respondents Bank invoked provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(for short, ‘the Act’) and issued demand notice dated 30.10.2017 u/sec.13(2) of the Act demanding the amount of Rs.1,93,96,399/- as on 29.09.2017 with subsequent interest with contractual rate. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said notice, the petitioner failed to pay the said amount. Therefore, the respondents Bank has filed O.A.No. 727 of 2017 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal -1, Hyderabad (DRT) for recovery of said amount together with interest at contractual rate from the date of filing of said application. The same was decreed vide orders dated 18.06.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents Bank by way of submitting OTS proposal, vide letter dated 06.01.2020. The respondents Bank approved the said OTS proposal and informed the petitioner that she has to pay the amount of Rs.103.50 Lakhs under OTS and upfront amount of Rs.10.25 Lakhs paid by the petitioner will be appropriated towards OTS amount and 15% (20%) shall be within ten days and the balance amount shall be paid within 90 days from the said OTS letter. In the event of failure to repay entire OTS amount within the stipulated time as per sanctioned terms, the OTS stands cancelled and the amount paid under the OTS will be adjusted to the loan account and will not be refunded. 4. The petitioner herein vide her letter dated 30.03.2021 informed the respondents that pursuant to the said letter dated 06.01.2020, she has paid upfront amount of Rs.25.88 Lakhs on 17.01.2020, Rs.10.00 Lakhs on 06.06.2020 and Rs.5.40 Lakhs on 18.08.2020. Though the petitioner herein has paid an amount of Rs.41.28 Lakhs and the remaining balance was supposed to clear within 90 days, the husband of the petitioner was hospitalized with brain stroke, got surgery followed by COVID-19 Pandemic situation, the petitioner is unable to pay the said amount. However, the petitioner informed the respondents Bank that she is going to pay the OTS amount along with interest due under OTS after adjust of upfront amount paid earlier on or before 31.03.2021 and close her loan account. With the said submissions, the petitioner requested the respondents Bank to consider the said request. 5. Vide letter dated 31.03.2021, the respondents Bank informed the petitioner that the outstanding in the loan amount as on 31.03.2021 is Rs.153.04 Lakhs and real account balance as on date is Rs.99.04 Lakhs, on review of the account, it is observed that the real account balance is Rs.99.04 Lakhs and her request to pay balance amount of Rs.62.22 Lakhs is not considered by the higher authorities. Therefore, the respondents Bank advised the petitioner to pay the real account balance of Rs.99.04 Lakhs by the time before business hours of 31.03.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition. 6. This Court vide order dated 27.04.2021 directed the respondents Bank not to take any coercive steps on condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.70 Lakhs within a period of four weeks from that day. This Court has also made clear that in default of depositing the said amount within stipulated time, the respondents are entitled to claim entire amount in accordance with law. 7. This Court has also made clear that in default of depositing the said amount within stipulated time, the respondents are entitled to claim entire amount in accordance with law. 7. The petitioner herein had filed I.A.No. 2 of 2021 to extend the time to deposit the said amount in compliance of the order dated 27.04.2021 and the same was allowed on 04.06.2021 granting one month time from that day to the to the petitioner to comply with the order dated 27.04.2021. The petitioner again filed I.A.No. 3 of 2021 with the same request to extend time to comply with the said order dated 27.04.2021 and the same was allowed on 12.07.2021 granting further one month time from that day to the petitioner to comply with the order dated 27.04.2021. According to the petitioner, she has paid only Rs.10 Lakhs. Balance Rs.6.00 Lakhs was not paid by her. 8. She has filed I.A.No. 4 of 2021 to consider additional facts while determining I.A.No. 3 of 2021 and she has also filed I.A.No. 5 of 2021 seeking to amend the prayer part of amount and the same was allowed on 14.09.2021. Thus, the above stated facts would reveal that the petitioner herein had paid only Rs.10.00 Lakhs leaving balance amount of Rs.60 Lakhs. Thus, the petitioner herein has not complied with the said order dated 27.04.2021 granted by this Court despite extending time twice. 9. Sri Sudharshan Malugari, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to several judgments would submit that this Court is having power to grant extension of time to pay the money in terms of OTS. In P. Vijayakumari vs. Indian Bank, (2018) 14 SCC 735 the Apex Court considered the delay in paying the amount as per the terms of settlement agreed before Lok Adalath within stipulated time, held that the High Court can interfere and examine the reasons mentioned by the donee for the delay caused in repaying amount agreed in terms of OTS. In the said case, considering the facts that the amount was paid, the petitioner therein has explained the delay, the Apex Court condoned delay caused in paying entire amount. 10. In the said case, considering the facts that the amount was paid, the petitioner therein has explained the delay, the Apex Court condoned delay caused in paying entire amount. 10. It is also relevant to note that in Anu Bhalla vs. District Magistrate, Pathankot, CWP No. 5518/2020, dated 22.09.2020 it is held that High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is having jurisdiction to extend the period of settlement as of originally provided for in the OTS Letter. In the said case, the Division Bench has laid down certain illustrative guidelines to be considered cumulatively or individually on facts on case to case basis whether an applicant would be entitled for extension of OTS or not and the same are mentioned below: (i) The Original Time provided in the Settlement-in our considered opinion the first and foremost aspect to be noticed would be the time period originally granted by the bank to pay off the settlement amount. If the time period originally stipulated in the settlement letter to pay off the settlement amount is short or not excessive, the case for extension then could be considered. It is to be noticed that the borrower is to arrange funds to complete the OTS. If reasonable time period is not given, the very purpose of settlement would be defeated. In that eventuality application for extension can be considered so that the borrower gets a reasonable time to clear off the settlement and the deposit of substantial amount and the ultimate purpose of settlement is achieved. (ii) Extent of payments already deposited under the settlement or before filing the petition- while considering an application for extension of time under OTS, the prime objective to be noticed is the intention of the borrower to culminate the settlement. If the borrower has already paid substantial amounts, to the creditor under the OTS, and for some remaining amounts is seeking a reasonable extension, such requests can be considered favorably. This shows, that the applicant had an intention to clear the settlement and the deposit of substantial amounts, is an indication in this regard. (iii) Reasons which led to delay in the payment- it is important to notice, the reasons, which led to delay on the part of the borrower. This shows, that the applicant had an intention to clear the settlement and the deposit of substantial amounts, is an indication in this regard. (iii) Reasons which led to delay in the payment- it is important to notice, the reasons, which led to delay on the part of the borrower. If the borrower was prevented by certain reasons or circumstances beyond his control, it could be a reason to consider an application for extension favorably. It would be imperative for the borrower to show, that he made his best efforts to ensure that the requisite amounts, are arranged within the specified time, but in spite of all his best efforts, he could not arrange the same. (iv) Payments having been accepted by the bank/Financial institutions, after the stipulated date - if the bank or the financial institution has been accepting the payments from the borrower towards the settlement even after the stipulated period of time, it shows that the time was not the essence of contract. It would be apparent from such conduct of the parties, that certain amount of relaxation or flexibility in making the payment of OTS amount is reserved between the parties. (v) Bona fide Intent of the borrower to pay the remaining amounts under the settlement-In order to test the bona fide intention of such an applicant, it could be reasonably be tested while asking such an applicant to deposit some further amount, towards the balance amount before calling upon the bank to consider the issue of the extension. If such amounts are deposited under the orders of the court and the bona fides are established, such an applicant would be entitled for a favorable consideration of an application for extension. We would like to add a caveat that if for any reason, the effort doesn’t lead to extension of time, as prayed for by the petitioner, then the amount deposited by the borrowers/depositors under the interim orders of the court, would have to be returned by the creditor to the petitioner. We draw strength from the recent judgment of the Hon’ble supreme court in Kut Energy Pvt. Ltd. vs. Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank bearing Civil Appeal No. 6016-6017/2019 decided on 20.08.2019. We draw strength from the recent judgment of the Hon’ble supreme court in Kut Energy Pvt. Ltd. vs. Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank bearing Civil Appeal No. 6016-6017/2019 decided on 20.08.2019. In the said case, the petitioner therein deposited upfront amount in the registry of the court to show its bona fide in support to its OTS proposal which was offered for consideration of the bank. The bank while rejecting the proposal sought to adjust the upfront amount against the contractual dues. The plea of refund raised by the petitioner was rejected by the high court which led to filing of an appeal before Hon’ble Supreme court. While allowing the appeal, it was held the deposit of the amounts in terms of interim order of high court was only to show the bona fides of the appellants when the revised order was made by them. The deposit was not towards the satisfaction of the debt in question. Hence, the bank was not justified in retaining the said upfront amount, while rejecting the OTS offer of the appellant therein and hence the bank ought to have refunded the upfront amount, if the OTS offer of the borrower was found to be unacceptable. (vi) Time period being demanded by the applicant to clear the remaining/balance settlement amount. An applicant whose intention would be to clear the balance settlement amounts, would not claim for a unreasonable period of an extension, as otherwise, the intention would be to gain more time, without any actual intent to clear the settlement. In the facts and circumstances of each case, the Courts would therefore determine a reasonable period, to enable the borrower to clear the remaining settlement amount, subject of course, to payment of reasonable interest for the delayed period, to balance the equities. (vii) Attending factors and circumstances:- Attending factors and circumstances involved, while making an application for extension play an important role to identify eligible and deserving cases as also to determine the extent of extension to be granted. For example , the current situation where the entire country has been adversely effected on account of COVID-19 pandemic, the difficulties in arranging the amounts could be taken note of while determining the period of extention to be granted to an applicant. For example , the current situation where the entire country has been adversely effected on account of COVID-19 pandemic, the difficulties in arranging the amounts could be taken note of while determining the period of extention to be granted to an applicant. Further, accounts which have suffred losses and became NPA on account of having suffered antural calamities, unfortunate accidents, fire incidents, thefts, damage by floods, storm etc., and have come forward for an eventual settlement, can also be considered for extension of time. (viii) Irreparable loss and injury to the applicant:- While examining an application for extension of settlement, it could also be seen to be noticed, the extent of an injury to be suffered by an applicant. 11. In Samarth Woolen Mills vs. Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank) in CWP No. 15895 of 2020 (O&M), decided on 04.06.2022 [MANU/PH/0719/2022] relying on the principle laid down by the Division Bench of the same Court in Anu Bhalla (supra) held that High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can extend period mentioned in the OTS letter under certain circumstances. In the said case, considering the fact that the Loanee had paid the entire amount of OTS though with some delay and the circumstances of the case justified and granted extension of time by about six months and the said delay, the bank cannot be compensated by payment of interest. Another Division Bench of P&H High Court in Hindustan Trading Company vs. Indian Oversees Bank, CWP No. 15579 of 2021, dated 15.03.2022 has also reiterated the said principle and granted extension of time to the petitioner for making payment as per the sanctioned OTS. 12. In Sardar Associates vs. Punjab and Sind Bank, (2009) 8 SCC 257 the Apex Court held that the Reserve Bank of India is a statutory authority. It exercises supervisory power in the matter of functionings of the Scheduled Banks. The matter relating to supervision of Scheduled Banks is also governed by the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. It held that the guidelines were issued by the Reserve Bank of India by reason of a letter dated 3.9.2005 addressed to the Chairman/ Managing Director of all public sector banks. The matter relating to supervision of Scheduled Banks is also governed by the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. It held that the guidelines were issued by the Reserve Bank of India by reason of a letter dated 3.9.2005 addressed to the Chairman/ Managing Director of all public sector banks. It clearly refers to a circular dated 19.08.2005 issued by the Reserve Bank of India in terms whereof it was directed that one time settlement scheme for recovery of NPA below Rs. 10 crore was laid down. The said letter was issued pursuant to the aforementioned circular in terms whereof one time settlement scheme was formulated for recovery of NPA below Rs. 10 crores. It was categorically stated therein that the same was required to be implemented by all public sector banks. The guidelines issued were to provide a simplified, non- discretionary and non-discriminatory mechanism therefor in SME sector. 13. The Apex Court further held that the public sector banks have to implement the guidelines of RBI relating to OTS as per its decision in Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra, (2002) 1 SCC 367 that the Board of Directors of Bank in the said case could not have deviated from the said guidelines and it’s conduct was violative of the equality clause contained in the RBI guidelines and also Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The bank itself has made an offer to accept the proposal of the payment in regard to enforcement of OTS pursuant to the RBI guidelines and it was certainly aware of the amount of securities lying with it. 14. In M/s Indo Swiss Time Limited vs. Umrao, AIR 1981 P&H 213 the Full Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court held that if there is direct conflict between the decisions of the Apex Court rendered by two equal Benches, the High Court must follow the judgment which appears to it to lay down the law more elaborately and accurately. The mere incidence of time whether the judgment earlier or later could hardly be relevant. 15. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited vs. Meenal Agarwal AIR 2022 SC 56 , Smt.V.Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents, would contend that the High Court is not having power to direct the banks/financial institutions to accept the OTS proposal submitted by the loanee. 15. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited vs. Meenal Agarwal AIR 2022 SC 56 , Smt.V.Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents, would contend that the High Court is not having power to direct the banks/financial institutions to accept the OTS proposal submitted by the loanee. In fact, in Samarth Woolen Mills (supra), the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court considering the principle laid down in Sardar Associates (supra), M/s Indo Swiss Time Limited (supra) and also Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited (supra), held that in Sardar Associates (supra) the Apex Court has elaborately considered the grant of OTS rather than in case of Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited (supra), and decision in Sardar Associates (supra) was not noticed by the Apex Court in Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited (supra). Therefore, the Division Bench has followed the decision in Sardar Associates (supra) and held that it would not be open to bank to decline OTS sought by borrower, a policy being evolved by the said bank. 16. Therefore, the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited (supra), relied upon by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents is of no help. 17. In Punjab and Sind Bank vs. Oberoi Cars Pvt. Ltd. MANU/DE/1668/2022 Delhi High Court relying on the terms of OTS Policy therein, held that the High Court can extend timelines of OTS on examination of the facts therein and also on satisfying the reasons mentioned by the loanee. The said principle was reiterated by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WPC No. 19673 of 2021, dated 03.01.2022. 18. The sum and substance of the above stated judgments is that this court by invoking its inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution can extend the time to the loanee to pay the amount agreed under OTS on satisfying the reasons mentioned therein on examination of the facts therein. 19. 18. The sum and substance of the above stated judgments is that this court by invoking its inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution can extend the time to the loanee to pay the amount agreed under OTS on satisfying the reasons mentioned therein on examination of the facts therein. 19. Smt. V.Dyumani, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents, relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rishika Cottons Private Limited vs. Union of India, MANU/TL/0291/2021 in W.P.No. 21893 of 2020 dated 23.01.2021, wherein Division Bench of this Court on examination of the facts therein that the petitioner therein has not even paid 5% of upfront amount within the time stipulated which is the post-Covid-19 pandemic situation, declined to extend the time to pay the OTS amount in terms of agreement. The Division Bench has also not relied upon the Division Bench Judgment in W.P.No. 9408 of 2020 dated 02.07.2020 of this court. 20. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank had also relied upon the judgment in Meeragani Appa Rao vs. Deputy General Manager-cum -Authorized Officer, IDBI Bank, Bhimavaram, 2018 (3) ALD 206 the then combined High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, on examination of the facts of the case therein i.e. the petitioner therein accepted the revocation /cancellation of OTS by the Bank under letter dated 23.06.2016 and took no further steps till the end of April, 2017. It clearly demonstrates the lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioner therein as it reflects upon his seriousness in taking advantage of the One Time Settlement offered to him by the bank. The question of the bank calling upon him to show-cause before cancelling the One Time Settlement does not arise as no such requirement is posited in the terms and conditions of the One Time Settlement. The Court therefore finds no illegality or irregularity in the bank resorting to cancellation of the One Time Settlement offered to the petitioner therein. Therefore, the facts of the said case are different to the facts of the present case. 21. The Court therefore finds no illegality or irregularity in the bank resorting to cancellation of the One Time Settlement offered to the petitioner therein. Therefore, the facts of the said case are different to the facts of the present case. 21. In the present case, the petitioner herein pursuant to the OTS letter dated 06.01.2020 had paid upfront amount of Rs.25,88,000/- on 17.01.2020, Rs.10.00 Lakhs on 06.01.2020, Rs.5.4 Laksh on 18.08.2020 and thus, the petitioner herein had paid total amount of Rs.41.28 Lakhs and the remaining balance was supposed to clear within 90 days. Thereafter she paid Rs.10.00 Lakhs pursuant to the interim order dated 27.04.2021. Therefore, the facts of the said case are different to the facts of the present case. 22. Vide order dated 22.04.2021, this Court directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner on the condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.70 lakhs within a period of four weeks from the said date. In default of depositing the said amount within the stipulated time, the respondents are entitled to proceed against the petitioner herein in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner herein has filed I.A.No. 2 of 2021 seeking extension of time to deposit the said amount. The said I.A.No. 2 of 2021 was allowed on 04.06.2021 granting one month time from the said date to the petitioner to comply with the order dated 27.04.2021. The petitioner herein again filed I.A.No. 3 of 2021 seeking further extension of time to comply with the order dated 27.04.2021. The said I.A.No. 3 of 2021 was allowed on 12.07.2021 and another one month time was granted to the petitioner to comply with the said order dated 27.04.2021. 23. It is relevant to note that the petitioner herein has deposited the said amount of Rs.70 Lakhs in compliance with the order dated 27.04.2021 and in proof of the same, he has filed a memo. The said fact was also mentioned in the reply filed by the petitioner, dated 28.10.2021 vide USR No. 64321 of 2022, dated 28.10.2021. 24. In view of the said submission, this Court directed learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents to get instructions with regard to the same. Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner herein has deposited the said amount of Rs.70 lakhs in compliance with the order dated 27.04.2021. 24. In view of the said submission, this Court directed learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents to get instructions with regard to the same. Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner herein has deposited the said amount of Rs.70 lakhs in compliance with the order dated 27.04.2021. Thus, in all the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.111.28 Lakhs (Rs.41.28+70 Lakhs) as against Rs.103.50 Lakhs agreed by respondents bank under OTS. Thus, the petitioner herein has deposited the said amount of Rs.70.00 Lakhs. But there is some delay for which the bank is entitled for interest. 25. Considering the said facts and also the above legal position, according to this Court, it is a fit case to grant extension of time to the petitioner to make payment under OTS. 26. In view of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is allowed and the petitioner shall pay the interest on the delayed payment for the period of delay at 9% p.a. after adjusting the aforesaid excess amount within four (4) weeks from today and respondents-Bank shall receive the said amount in terms of OTS acceptance dated 06.01.2020 and return the original documents to the petitioner along with no objection certificate. The petitioner shall submit calculation memo mentioning the payment, delay and interest etc. with the respondents Bank which in turn shall consider the same. If there is any dispute regarding payment, interest and delay etc., respondents Bank is at liberty to seek clarification from the petitioner. 27. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand closed.