Allahabad High Court
M/S. M.M. INDUSTRIES PROPRIETOR, SMT. MEENU BANSAL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court directed the petitioners to file a fresh OTS application within two weeks and declined to issue mandamus or restraining orders.
Summary
Petitioners M.M. Industries and Smt. Meenu Bansal filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the respondent bank to reconsider an OTS (One Time Settlement) proposal dated 11‑09‑2025 and to restrain the bank from taking any coercive action against them. The bank contended that the petitioners had previously missed the deadline to deposit the upfront amount required for the OTS and therefore the earlier application lapsed, but it was willing to consider a fresh application if filed. The Court examined whether it could compel the bank to reconsider the earlier proposal and restrain coercive measures. It held that the petitioners should file a fresh application for the OTS benefit, if the scheme still exists, within two weeks, and the bank must decide on it within six weeks. Consequently, the petition was disposed of without granting the writs, with a procedural direction to the parties.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing a bank to reconsider an OTS proposal under Article 226.
- Whether the Court can restrain a bank from taking coercive measures against a petitioner during pendency of the writ petition.
- Whether the petitioners are required to file a fresh OTS application after missing the earlier deadline.
Subjects
- Article 226
- writ petition
- mandamus
- One Time Settlement
- bank
- coercive measures
- procedural default
- fresh application
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 10469 of 2026
M/S. M.M. Industries Proprietor, Smt. Meenu
Bansal And Another .....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kartikeya Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Krishna Mohan Asthana
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
1. Heard Shri Kartikeya Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Shri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Bank.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioners have prayed for following reliefs :
"i. To, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to 5
(respondent bank) to reconsider the OTS proposal dated 11.09.2025 in light of continuous payments done
by the petitioner in honour of the agreement,.
ii. issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent bank not to take
any coercive measure against the petitioner or his property during the pendency of this writ petition and
during the interval of repayment of the OTS amount."
3. Shri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank
on the contrary submits that earlier the petitioners had moved an
application for which they were required to deposit upfront amount by
18.12.2025 but they failed to deposit and hence the time lapsed, however,
he is not averse if any direction is issued for consideration of a fresh
application about the benefit in the OTS scheme, if the petitioners apply
afresh.
4. In view of above, we dispose of this petition with a direction to the
petitioners to move a fresh application for the benefit under the OTS
WRIC No. 10469 of 2026
2
scheme if it is still subsisting with the bank and if they do so within two
weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the
authority concerned within a period of six weeks of presentation.
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
March 19, 2026
Shiv
Digitally signed by :-
SHIV KUMAR SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…