Patna High Court
M/s Jagdamba EnterprisesversusThe State Bank of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The High Court held that it cannot direct the bank to issue a No Objection Certificate or alter the OTS scheme, and therefore dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Jagdamba Enterprises, sought a writ of mandamus directing State Bank of India to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) after allegedly completing payment under an One‑Time Settlement (OTS) scheme and also claimed compensation for alleged negligence. The bank contended that the petitioner missed the stipulated deadline of the OTS scheme, rendering the settlement void, and that the court cannot interfere with the terms of such schemes. The court examined the bank statements and found that the petitioner had not paid the full amount by the deadline, and noted that under Article 226 the High Court cannot direct a bank to grant an NOC or alter OTS timelines. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that it has no jurisdiction to compel the bank to issue the NOC or award compensation. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with the court indicating that the petitioner may obtain the NOC only after fully clearing the outstanding dues as per the bank’s terms.
Issues considered
- Can a writ of mandamus be issued directing a bank to issue a No Objection Certificate after settlement under an OTS scheme?
- Does Article 226 empower the High Court to interfere with the terms and timelines of a bank's OTS scheme?
- Is the petitioner entitled to monetary compensation for alleged negligence by the bank?
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- No Objection Certificate
- One Time Settlement
- Mandamus
- Article 226
- Banking law
- Consumer rights
- Writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12001 of 2024
======================================================
M/s Jagdamba Enterprises through its Proprietor Shailendra Singh, Son of
Bhikhari Singh, age about 47, Resident of Main Gali, Subashnagar, near
Satsang Bhawan, Dehri, Rohtas, Bihar- 821307.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Bank of India through Chief General Manager, Patna Main
Branch, Gandhi Main, District-Patna- 800001.
2. The Assistant General Manager, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, State
Bank of India, Main Branch, Gandhi Main, District-Patna-800001.
3. The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Patna Main Building, South
Gandhi Maidan, Patna, Bihar-800001.
4. The Branch Manager, Dehri On Sone Branch, State Bank of India, Personal
Banking Branch, Dehri, Shyam Sundar House, Pali Road, Dehri On Sone,
District- Rohtas- 821305.
5. Miss. Rashmi Sinha, Post Unknown, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, State
Bank of India, Main Branch, Gandhi Main, District-Patna-800001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Adil Abbas, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the SBI : Mr. Santush Kumar Singh, Advocate.
Mr. Anubhav Verma, Advocate.
For the Resp. No. 5 : Mr. A. K. Sharan, Advocate.
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sharan, Advocate.
Mr. Hemant Kumar Sharan, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
13 12-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of writ or
writs in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the Respondents especially
Patna High Court CWJC No.12001 of 2024(13) dt.12-01-2026
2/5
Respondent No. 2 to grant/issue No
Objection Certificate (NOC) to the
petitioner for the Loan Account No.
61328665063 against the Loan Amount
duly paid by the petitioner to the
Respondent-State Bank of India.
(ii) For issuance of writ or
writs in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the Respondent-Bank to
provide the compensation of Rs.
1,00,000/- to the petitioner against the
mental and physical agony faced by the
petitioner due to the negligence on the
part of Respondent-Bank.”
3. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the
OTS Scheme floated by the Respondent-Bank, the petitioner
was obligated to pay an amount of Rs. 12,02,378.70 and the
petitioner has been paying the same but due to some
miscalculation and latches on part of the Respondent-Bank, the
petitioner could not deposit the last instalment within the
stipulated time. However, the petitioner has paid the entire
outstanding amount including interest for the delayed payment
on 06.07.2022. However, the Respondent-Bank is not issuing
the ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) though the petitioner has
cleared the outstanding due amount as per the OTS Scheme
granted by the Respondent-Bank. Learned counsel has,
therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to allow the present writ
petition and direct the Respondent-Bank to issue the NOC to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12001 of 2024(13) dt.12-01-2026
3/5
petitioner.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Respondent-Bank has vehemently opposed the very
maintainability of the present writ petition. Learned counsel has
stated that the petitioner has been granted the OTS Scheme and
he was obligated to pay the entire outstanding loan amount by
19.06.2022, however, the petitioner has failed to do so. That the
total amount as per the OTS Scheme is approximately Rs.
12,02,378/- but the petitioner has paid only Rs. 10 Lakhs even
going by his own bank-statement till 19.06.2022, thereafter, the
petitioner has deposited the balance amount of Rs. 2,17,380/- on
06.07.2022. Learned counsel stated that the OTS Scheme is a
time bound scheme and the time schedule given in the OTS
Scheme has to be adhered to strictly and in case there are any
lapses on part of the petitioner in repaying the amount within
the stipulated time, the OTS Scheme gets nullified and the
petitioner has to pay the entire outstanding loan amount.
Further, it is stated that in case the petitioner clears the
outstanding loan amount, the Respondent-authority will issue a
No Objection Certificate. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed
this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
5. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner had
Patna High Court CWJC No.12001 of 2024(13) dt.12-01-2026
4/5
availed loan from the Respondent-Bank and thereafter vide OTS
Scheme dated 21.10.2020, he was granted one time settlement
for clearing the outstanding due amount. The amount payable
under the OTS Scheme was fixed at Rs. 12,02,378/-, the bank-
statement filed by the petitioner (Annexure P/8) reflects that the
petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs on
21.12.2021, Rs. 1 Lakh on 29.01.2022, Rs. 1 Lakh on
29.04.2022 and Rs. 1 Lakh on 21.05.2022 and Rs. 1 Lakh on
10.06.2022 and Rs. 6,17,380/- on 30.07.2022. Learned counsel
has stated that the amount of Rs. 6,17,380/- reflecting on
30.07.2022 is wrongly shown, as a matter of fact, the petitioner
has deposited an amount of Rs. 4 Lakhs on 30.07.2022 and the
balance amount after ascertaining from the Respondent No. 5
deposited the entire balance amount along with interest on the
delayed payment, however, the same has not been reflected in
time. Even if the contention of the petitioner is to be taken that
he has deposited the entire amount, it is to be noted that as per
the bank statement filed by the petitioner, the same reflects that
the petitioner has deposited a total amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs till
21.06.2022. The petitioner has not deposited an amount of Rs.
2,17,380/- by the end of the stipulated time. Irrespective of the
reasons for the delay, this court is not concerned with the same
Patna High Court CWJC No.12001 of 2024(13) dt.12-01-2026
5/5
as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases has held that
this Hon’ble Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India cannot direct the Respondent-Bank to either grant an
OTS Scheme or change the timelines issued under the OTS
Scheme.
6. Having regard to the same, this Court does not find
any merit in the present writ petition which warrants any
interference from this Court. The present writ petition is
accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner, if so advised, is
free to clear the outstanding due amount and on such amount
been paid, the Respondent-Bank shall issue ‘No Objection
Certificate’ (NOC) to the petitioner.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-
U
Checking your session…