Sunil Dattaray PatilversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

                                                                                             906_WP584_26.doc



                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                                WRIT PETITION NO.584 OF 2026

                          Sunil Dattatray Patil                                    …        Petitioner
                          Vs.
                          State of Maharashtra and another                         …        Respondents

                          Mr. Kaustubh Somnath Pawar a/w. Mr. Rohit K. for Petitioner.
                          Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl. GP a/w. Ms. T. N. Bhatia, AGP for Respondent No.1-State.
                          Mr. Rajesh Kanojia a/w. Ms. Deepika Prabhala i/b. Res Juris for Respondent No.2
                          - Bank.

                                                      CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
                                                              SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
                                                      DATE          : JANUARY 13, 2026
                          P.C. :

                          .        Heard Mr. Pawar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
                          Mr. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No.2
                          Bank.

                          2.       By this petition, the petitioner, who is a defaulting borrower, has
                          impugned the act of the contesting respondent No.2 Bank in rejecting a
                          One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal dated 24.06.2024 moved by the
                          petitioner and also the consequent possession notice dated 19.12.2025
                          issued by the respondent Bank. A further direction is sought in the form
                          of a mandamus against the said respondent Bank for reconsidering the
                          OTS proposal of the petitioner.

MINAL Digitally
       by MINAL
                signed    3.       The OTS proposal was moved by the petitioner in the light of an
SANDIP SANDIP   PARAB
       Date: 2026.01.14
PARAB 10:28:52 +0530
                          order dated 10.07.2024 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT),
                          Pune in a pending proceeding.

                          4.       The    DRT     directed   that     upon   10%       of    amount       of
                          Rs.1,18,04,117.36/- being transferred to the bank, the subject OTS

                                                                                                         1/4
                                                               906_WP584_26.doc



proposal would be considered by the bank.

5.    By an e-mail communication dated 17.09.2025, the respondent
Bank rejected the OTS proposal of Rs.30 lakhs, in the light of the total
outstanding accumulated dues in the loan account of the petitioner. It
was stated that in the light of rejection of the OTS, the petitioner was
required to pay an amount of Rs.1,77,79,145.40/-.

6.    We find that the order dated 10.07.2024 was passed by the DRT,
inter alia, observing that in the event of OTS proposal is rejected, the
petitioner shall settle the loan account by making payment of entire
outstanding dues within three months in default of which, he shall
handover vacant possession of the subject property to the respondent-
Bank, without further reference to the DRT. The entire material
pertaining to the amount due from the petitioner as the borrower was
placed before the DRT.

7.    In such circumstances, the attempt sought to be made before this
Court by referring to some certificate issued by the Chartered
Accountant and tendering documents across the Bar, cannot be
countenanced. We are in agreement with the contention raised on behalf
of the respondent Bank that this is nothing but another attempt to
somehow delay the inevitable. Apart from this, a more fundamental
question arises for consideration in this petition, which goes to the very
root of the matter and the jurisdiction to be exercised by the writ court in
such circumstances.

8.    The learned counsel appearing for respondent Bank is justified in
relying upon judgement and order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7411 of 2021 (The Bijnor Urban Co-
operative Bank Limited Vs. Meenal Agarwal and others), where specific
questions pertaining to the OTS scheme were considered and decided.


                                                                           2/4
                                                               906_WP584_26.doc



9.    The Supreme Court considered the question as to whether benefit
of OTS scheme could be prayed as a matter of right and further as to
whether the High Court exercising writ jurisdiction could issue a
mandamus, directing the bank to consider an OTS scheme.

10.   After detailed discussion, the Supreme Court found that no
borrower can, as a matter of right, pray for grant of benefit of OTS
scheme. It was further held that if the Writ Court starts entertaining such
prayers, it would amount to giving premium to dishonest borrowers,
who have failed to repay the amount in the first place. The Supreme
Court has gone to the extent of holding that, no writ of mandamus can be
issued by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, directing a financial institution or bank to
positively consider OTS proposed by the borrower. The aforesaid
position of law clarified by the Supreme Court goes to the very root of
the matter and indicates that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in such
circumstances, where a defaulting borrower insists upon the Writ Court
to grant relief in respect of OTS proposals moved before the financial
institution or the bank.

11.   In the present case, we find that the petitioner took three loan
facilities, defaulted on all three, and when the respondent Bank
undertook precipitate steps, a statement was made that 10% of the
amount would be paid and that the OTS proposal would be moved.
Although 10% of the amount appears to have been paid by the
petitioner, the OTS proposal has been rejected and therefore, we do not
find any reason to consider this as a unique or peculiar case where
jurisdiction can be exercised, in the light of the aforesaid position of law
made abundantly clear by the Supreme Court in the judgement in the
case of The Bijnor Urban Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. Meenal
Agarwal and others (supra).


                                                                           3/4
                                                            906_WP584_26.doc



12.     All attempts, being made at this stage, to claim that the actual
amount due is far less, cannot be entertained, primarily because when
the DRT passed the order dated 10.07.2024, there was not even a
whisper on the part of the petitioner that there was some error in
accounting for the amount that was repaid. The order was passed on a
joint purshis, which indicated that even at that point in time, the
outstanding dues were more than Rs.1 crore.

13.     In view of the above, we do not find any reason to entertain the
present petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.




(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)                       (MANISH PITALE, J.)




Minal Parab




                                                                        4/4