JUDGMENT 1. The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the action of respondent-bank in declining one time settlement scheme to the petitioner by applying Sec. 20A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 1949 Act' for short). 2. Facts leading to the case are that, petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on its business of rice. The partnership firm availed cash credit / overdraft loan from respondent No.1-bank. The total sum of loan availed is Rs.1, 66, 45, 000.00 payable in 120 monthly installments. The loan account with respondent No.1 bank became a non performing account (NPA). Respondent No.1 - Bank has declared that account as NPA. 3. The petitioner firm approached respondent No.1 - Bank and requested to extend the benefit of One Time Settlement (OTS). Respondent No.1 - Bank by impugned endorsement dtd. 25/7/1999 vide Annexure-H has declined to extend One Time Settlement on the premise that one of the partner of their firm was a Director of respondent No.1 - Bank and therefore, in the absence of approval from Reserve Bank of India, respondent No.1 has declined to approve OTS Scheme. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner firm reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would vehemently argue and contend that respondent No.1 - Bank has wrongly applied provisions of Sec. 20A of the 1949 Act'. He would point out that though Sri.Venkatram Sitaram Balgi, who was also Director of respondent No.1 - Bank, has died on 5/2/2017 and he was no more a Director when the application seeking benefit of OTS Scheme was applied by the petitioner firm. Referring to Sec. 20A of the 1949 Act', he would point out that Sec. 20A has no application to the present case on hand. He would further point out that prior approval of Reserve Bank either to remit in whole or in part any debt due to it is required only when any firm or company in which any of its Directors is a interested as Director, partner, Managing Agent or Guarantor. Therefore, referring to Sec. 20A, he would point out that the present firm is entitled to have a benefit of OTS Scheme. Therefore, he would request this Court to quash the endorsement issued by respondent No.1 - Bank vide Annexure-H. 5. Therefore, referring to Sec. 20A, he would point out that the present firm is entitled to have a benefit of OTS Scheme. Therefore, he would request this Court to quash the endorsement issued by respondent No.1 - Bank vide Annexure-H. 5. Sri.Venkatesh R Bhagat, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 - Bank would, however, bring to the notice of this Court that Sec. 20A is subjected to further amendment and under Sec. 56 of the 1949 Act', the word "any of its Directors" is substituted by words "any of its past or present Director". Referring to these amendments by way of substitution to Sec. 20A, he would point out that respondent No.1 - Bank cannot extend OTS Scheme to the present firm and therefore, the impugned communication vide Annexure - H is strictly in consonance with the substituted sub Sec. (m) of Sec. 56 of the 1949 Act' and therefore, would not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 - Bank. There is no representation on behalf of Reserve Bank of India. Perused the materials on record. 7. Before I advert to the facts of the present case, it would be useful for this Court to refer Sec. 20A of 1949 Act' and Sec. 56(m) of 1949 Act' read as under. "Sec. 20A of BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949 (a) Caluse (1) substituted by the Banking Laws (Amendment) Act (58 of 1968) S.21(e). (1- 2-1969). 20A. Restrictions on power to remit debts:- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sec. 293 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), a banking company shall not, except with the prior approval of the Reserve Bank, remit in whole or in part any debt due to it by- (a) any of its directors, or (b) any firm or company in which any of its directors is interested as director, partner, managing agent or guarantor, or (c) any individual if any of its directors is his partner or guarantor. (2) Any remission made in contravention of the provisions of sub-sec. (1) shall be void and of no effect." "Sec. 56(m) in BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949 (m) in Sec. 20A, in sub-sec. (2) Any remission made in contravention of the provisions of sub-sec. (1) shall be void and of no effect." "Sec. 56(m) in BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949 (m) in Sec. 20A, in sub-sec. (1).- (i) the words and figures "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sec. 293 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), " shall be omitted; (ii) in clause (a), for the words "any of its directors", the words "any of its past or present directors" shall be substituted." 8. On reading of Sec. 56(m) of the 1949 Act', it is clearly evident that the application and operation of Sec. 20A pertaining to Co-operative Bank has undergone amendment by way of substitution. The word "any of its directors" is substituted by the word "any of its past or present directors". Therefore, on reading Sub Clause (m) of Sec. 56 of 1949 Act', either past or present director who is also partner of firm, which has availed a loan from the Co-operative Society is not entitled to seek benefit under OTS scheme without approval of Reserve Bank of India. In the present case on hand, respondent No.2 - Reserve Bank of India has declined to approve the OTS scheme in respect of petitioner firm. 9. Therefore, on conjoint reading of Sub Sec. (m) of Sec. 56(m) and Sec. 20A, it is clearly evident that the Director of Co-operative Bank, who had availed a loan as one of the partner of a firm is not entitled for any remittance as indicated in Sec. 20A of the Act, 1949. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned communication issued by respondent No.1 - Bank. The communication vide Annexure - H is found to be strictly inconsonance with the Sub-Clause (m) of Sec. 56 of the Act. If these admitted facts are looked into, then respondent No.1 - Bank has no discretion either to extend the OTS Scheme or to accept any remittance as indicated under Sec. 20A of the Act. The procedure adopted by respondent No.1 - Bank is found to be in strictly compliance of sub Sec. (m) of Sec. 56 read with Sec. 20A of the 'Act, 1949'. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the communication dtd. 25/7/2019 vide Annexure-H. 10. In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is dismissed. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the communication dtd. 25/7/2019 vide Annexure-H. 10. In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is dismissed. (ii) Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.