JUDGMENT Sanjiv Berry, J. Present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 11.03.2022 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.3, under Section 14 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short, 'the SARFAESI Act'), the impugned notice dated 05.01.2023 (Annexure P-8) issued by respondent No.4 for taking over the possession of property in question and also for direction to respondents No. 1 to 4 to grant appropriate time to deposit the balance of the loan amount in pursuance to the One Time Settlement dated 25.09.2019. 2. Brief facts pleaded in the petition are that the petitioner is owner in possession of residential house fully described in para No. 2 of the petition for which he had availed loans from respondents No. 1 and 2 by mortgaging the said property vide loan accounts No.00000284 and No. 00000530 to the tune of Rs.42,00,000/- and Rs.89,00,000/-, respectively. However, due to unavoidable circumstances the petitioner failed to repay the loan amount as per the schedule and the said loan accounts were declared Non-Performing Assets (NPAs). Thereafter, the petitioner entered into One Time Settlement (OTS) with respondents No. 1 and 2 wherein, it was stipulated that to settle the loan account No.00000284, an amount of Rs.42,00,000/- was to be paid in three installments as per Annexure-1 and similarly, qua loan account No. 00000530, an amount of Rs.89,00,000/- was to be paid in five installments as per Annexure P-2. In pursuance of the said One Time Settlement, the petitioner deposited Rs.19,00,000/-, out of Rs.42,00,000/- on 25.09.2019 and also Rs.30,50,000/- out of Rs.89,00,000/- on 31.10.2019 with respondents No. 1 and 2 vide receipts (Annexure P-3 & P-4) respectively. 3. Thereafter, due to his inability to deposit the settled amount as per the One Time Settlement (OTS), he sent legal notice to respondents No. 1 and 2 to grant time to deposit the balance amount along with simple interest prevailing at present. However, the respondents got issued the order dated 11.03.2022 (Annexure P-7) under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and consequent notice for possession of the property dated 05.01.2023 (Annexure P-8). 4. Since advance notice of the petition was served upon the respondents, Ms. However, the respondents got issued the order dated 11.03.2022 (Annexure P-7) under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and consequent notice for possession of the property dated 05.01.2023 (Annexure P-8). 4. Since advance notice of the petition was served upon the respondents, Ms. Sidhi Bansal, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner happens to be bona fide borrower, who had availed two loans, by mortgaging the property, i.e the residential house. Further submitted that due to certain unavoidable circumstances and Covid-19, the petitioner could not repay the loan amount in both the accounts, resulting the same being declared Non Performing Assets (NPA) and ultimately vide Annexures P-1 and P-2, One Time Settlement (OTS) was effected amounting to Rs.42,00,000/- and Rs.89,00,000/- respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that although the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.19,00,000/- and Rs.30,50,000/-, in the aforementioned accounts, respectively, but could not repay remaining installments as per the One Time Settlement of the respective accounts. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that possession notice under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act (Annexure P-7) has been passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtak, qua the mortgaged property and to save the same being the residential property the petitioner is willing to deposit the balance amount as per the One Time Settlement (OTS) along with simple interest and requested for extension of time by way of directing the respondents No. 1 and 2 in this regard. 8. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 has vehemently opposed these arguments by submitting that the petitioner had will-fully defaulted in making payments of the installments as per the schedule settled in genuinely drawn One Time Settlement (OTS) as per Annexures P-1 and P-2 and deposited only part payments therein way back on 25.09.2019 and 31.10.2019 so respondents No. 1 and 2 have been proceeding as per law. 9. After considering the respective submissions, admittedly, the petitioner had availed two loans of which there had been default to repay and ultimately One Time Settlement(s) were effected, vide Annexure P-1 and P-2, amounting to Rs.42,00,000/- and Rs.89,00,000/-, respectively. 9. After considering the respective submissions, admittedly, the petitioner had availed two loans of which there had been default to repay and ultimately One Time Settlement(s) were effected, vide Annexure P-1 and P-2, amounting to Rs.42,00,000/- and Rs.89,00,000/-, respectively. Admittedly, the petitioner paid only Rs.19,00,000/- and Rs.30,50,000/-, respectively, out of the settled amount of Rs.42,00,000/- and Rs.89,00,000/-, respectively, vide receipts dated 25.09.2019 and 31.10.2019 (Annexure P-3 & P4) respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner failed to pay the balance installments as per the One Time Settlement (OTS), resulting in respondents No. 1 and 2 availing the remedy under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act qua the mortgaged property. 10. In nutshell, by way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to grant him more time to deposit the amounts due under aforesaid One Time Settlement(s) (OTS) pertaining to both the loan accounts. 11. In this regard, it is worth mentioning here that the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment cited as 2023 (1) SCC 540 , State Bank of India v. Arvindra Electronics Pvt Ltd, has specifically laid down as under:- "(i) No borrower can, as a matter of right pray for a grant for the benefit of one time settlement scheme; (ii) No writ of mandamus can be issued by the High court in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the financial institution/bank to positively grant a benefit of OTS to a borrower; (iii) the grant of benefit of OTS Scheme is subject to the eligibility criteria and the guidelines issued from time to time. " It has further been held therein that the claim for grant of time to the petitioner to pay the balance amount as per the One Time Settlement by way of grant of writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 12. The preposition of law laid down in the judgment (supra) of the Hon'ble Apex Court applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present petition, the petitioner has sought the extension of time to fulfill the conditions of the One Time Settlement(s) (OTS) by way of seeking Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which in the light of the dictum of the aforesaid judgment is not at all maintainable. Accordingly the petition is hereby dismissed.