JUDGMENT : Mohammed Nias C.P., J. This original petition is filed with the following reliefs:- i. Issue order, or Direction calling for the records leading up to Ext.-P14 from Respondent and to direct the Respondent to refund an amount of Rs.12,14,286.60 towards incentive as eligible as per Ext.-P4 along with the excess amount paid and to close the loan account, and to return all the title documents pertaining to immovable properties within a time frame; ii. Issue such other and further Writ, Order, or Direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner had availed of a cash credit facility in 2006, which was enhanced later, after creating a security interest. As the petitioner defaulted in repayment of the amounts due to the bank, the accounts were classified as Non-Performing Assets on 28.08.2017. Action was initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SARFAESI Act’). The petitioner had challenged the same by filing W.P. (C) No. 3445/2017, including for the grant of an instalment facility. In the writ appeal filed by the petitioner, the judgment itself was modified, directing the petitioner to pay the unserved interest portion remaining overdue for payment under the cash credit facility in two equal monthly instalments, and the bank was directed to consider the question of renewing the cash credit facility for further periods. 3. Alleging that the petitioner did not comply with the directions of this Court, the bank again proceeded under the SARFAESI Act, which resulted in the petitioner filing Securitisation Application No.251/2017, which was disposed of. Pending the said Securitisation Application, the petitioner has sought a one-time settlement facility from the bank, which was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed S.A. 216/2020, again challenging the actions of the bank, and during its pendency, the petitioner was served with Annexure-1, intimating him that he was eligible for a settlement under the SBI OTS 2020. The same was sanctioned on 25.11.2020 with the following conditions: “Scheme for One Time Settlement of NPAs & AUCAS (SBI OTS 2020) We refer to your letter No. dated for settlement of your dues to the Bank under the captioned scheme. We are pleased to advise that your application under the captioned scheme has been accepted by the appropriate authority. 1. We are pleased to advise that your application under the captioned scheme has been accepted by the appropriate authority. 1. OTS amount payable under the OTS Scheme will be Rs.22721872.02 Only. 2. Application money of Rs. 1150000.00 paid by you will be appropriated towards your OTS amount. 3. Another 10% of the OTS Amount will have to be deposited by you as first instalment within thirty days from the date of sanction of OTS failing which the OTS sanction will be rendered infructuous and OTS treated as failed. 4. Another 10% of the OTS Amount will have to be deposited by you as second instalment of money within sixty days from the date of sanction of OTS failing which the OTS sanction will be rendered infructuous and OTS treated as failed. 5. The balance amount can be paid within 8 months from the date of this letter, i.e. // (the validity period) together with interest @ 6 Months MCLR on reducing balance basis effective from the date of this letter, i.e. within, failing which the OTS sanction will be rendered infructuous. 6. However, no interest will be charged if the entire OTS amount is paid within 6 months from the date of this letter. 4. The petitioner contends that only the payment to be made under condition No.4 of Ext.P4 dated 25.11.2020 was not complied with on time, but the entire payment mentioned in Ext.P4 was made well before the eight months granted therein. 5. The bank, on the other hand, contends that the payment under condition No.3 itself was defaulted, which led to the cancellation of the scheme, and, therefore, they continued their proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, through Ext.P15 order dated 20.11.2024, dismissed SA 216/2020, which, inter alia, considered the question of the compliance with the OTS conditions by the petitioner and found that the petitioner had admittedly not complied with the same and therefore the bank was justified in cancelling the same. Ext.P15 has not been challenged to date. 6. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly challenged the correctness of the order of the Tribunal, which affirmed the decision of the bank rejecting the OTS proposal. Ext.P15 has not been challenged to date. 6. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly challenged the correctness of the order of the Tribunal, which affirmed the decision of the bank rejecting the OTS proposal. According to him, the petitioner had made payments as follows: Exhibit.P2 16-10-2020 Letter from Bank about OTS addressed to petitioner fixing the OTS amount as Rs.2,27,21,872/- Exhibit.P3 23-11-2020 Petitioner remits Rs.11,50,000/- as upfront amount Exhibit.P4 25-11-2020 Bank inform that amount paid as per Exhibit.P3 will be appropriated towards OTS Exhibit.P5 23-12-2020 Petitioner remits Rs.11,50,000/- towards instalment which fall due on 25-12-2020. 23-02-2021 Last date for payment of 2nd instalment 06-03-2021 Pays Rs.45,00,000/- 06-03-2021 Pays Rs.50,00,000/- 08-03-2021 Pays Rs.100,00,000/- The period of eight months expired on 24-07-2021 Total amount paid as on 08-03-2021 Rs.2,28,00,000/- 7. According to the respondent bank, the payments were made as follows: Date Description 23-11-2020 Rs. 11,50,000/- deposited by the petitioner being 5% of the amount to consider OTS. 25-11-2020 OTS was sanctioned for an amount of Rs.2,27,21,872.02, on payment of Rs.11,50,000/- as the upfront amount on 23.11.2020. 25-12-2020 The petitioner had to deposit Rs. 22,72,187.20 being the 10% of the OTS amount as per Exhibit P2. However, the petitioner remitted only 5% being Rs.11,50,000/- as against Rs. 22,72,187.20. Hence the OTS failed. 24-01-2021 The petitioner had to deposit Rs. 22,72,187.20 - 10% of the OTS amount as per Exhibit P2. No remittances made. 08-03-2021 The petitioner remitted Rs.2.05 crores as per the undertaking in SA 216 of 2020 to avert the sale as per sale notice date 15-02-2021. Total amount remitted from 23-11-2020 to 08-03-2021 = Rs.2,28,00,000/- 8. Thus, in short, both the petitioner and the respondent bank would concede that within the outer limit of eight months granted under Ext.P4, the petitioner had remitted the amount fixed by the bank, though the payment was not in terms of condition Nos. 3 and 4 in Ext.P4 sanction letter. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had made the payment within the outer time limit fixed in Ext.P4 with a delay, it must be treated as compliance with the OTS and findings to the contrary by the Tribunal are clearly wrong and liable to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent bank, Smt.S. Lakshmi, on the other hand, contends that, going by the admitted case, the petitioner had defaulted in complying with condition No.4. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has not complied with condition No. 3 either, as could be seen from the date of the payments effected. It is also submitted that a recovery certificate was also issued in DRC 22/2025 in OA 126/2018 on 19.02.2025 itself. It is also to be noted that payments made by the petitioner, after the lapse of the OTS scheme and pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal, cannot be considered as payments towards OTS. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 11. The learned counsel also relies on the decisions in Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Meenal Agarwal [2022 (1) KLT SN 2(C.No.3) SC], State Bank of India v. Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [ 2022 (6) KLT OnLine 1115 (SC) ], Hyder C.A. v. Authorised Officer, India Bank [2025 KHC OnLine 864], PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank and others [Civil Appeal No. 4845 of 2024], State Bank of India v. Sham [ 2024 (6) KLT 865 ] and Assistant General Manager State Bank of India v. Tanya Energy Enterprises Through its Managing Partner Shri Alluri Lakshmi Narasimha Varma [2025 KHC OnLine 6802 SC], to justify the cancellation of the OTS sanctioned to the petitioner. 12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and going by the admitted case and the dates on which payments were made, there cannot be any doubt at all that the OTS scheme was not complied with by the petitioner as stipulated in Ext.P4 read along with the eCircular dated 12.10.2020 issued by the State Bank of India. The facts of the case, however, would show that the petitioner did make the payment within the outer limit of eight months granted in Ext.P4, despite not complying with condition Nos. 3 and 4 of the scheme. The right of the bank to proceed under the SARFAESI Act after cancelling the OTS scheme also cannot be disputed, more so when the challenge to the same ended through Ext.P15 order of the Tribunal dated 20.11.2024. It is also to be noted that a recovery certificate has also been issued, as referred to above. 13. The right of the bank to proceed under the SARFAESI Act after cancelling the OTS scheme also cannot be disputed, more so when the challenge to the same ended through Ext.P15 order of the Tribunal dated 20.11.2024. It is also to be noted that a recovery certificate has also been issued, as referred to above. 13. As such, in normal circumstances, no interference is warranted in this original petition, as the actions of the bank rejecting the OTS proposal cannot be faulted. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner had made the entire payments, within the outer limit granted in Ext.P4, I am inclined to grant a limited relief to the petitioner, as has been done by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Tanya Energy Enterprises (supra) by granting the petitioner an opportunity to submit a fresh proposal for OTS not under the OTS 2020 scheme. If the terms and conditions put forth by the petitioner are found to be workable and acceptable, the respondent bank may take such decision on it, in accordance with law, as it deems fit and proper in the circumstances. In case the decision of the bank is not acceptable to the petitioner, it will be open to the petitioner to work out his remedies against Ext.P15 order or other steps for recovery taken by the respondent bank, if so advised. The original petition is disposed of as above.