One time settlement guideline

Here, the outstanding amount is Rs. 30.00 lacs on higher side. The value of the property must be more than that. The Bank will never agree for OTS, because they have got property in their hand. It is advisable to pay off completely, or else they will take away the possession of the property as provided under Section 13 (4) of the Securitization Act and auction the property and credit the proceed in the NPA account. 

I am sorry, but I do not find the answer of Mr. Hemang acceptable. The bank will never agree for OTS, I really can't understand. Bank always agrees for OTS in all cases. The matter of contention is the amount of OTS the bank agrees for settlement.

If the amount of security is more than the outstanding, than the bank may not extend any relaxation. But cases where security is 50% of the amount is due in that case banks become liberal to certain extent.

My question is from you learned peoples, how much relaxation bank may extend in the example case mentioned.

 It's valuable advice senior...I am practicing in the field of DRT also.....ashok kushwaha

Mr Hemang is absolutely right..You may file appeal u/s 17 of securitisation Act against the order passed in sec 13[4] of the act for taking possession.In appeal you may offer a proposal for OTS and if the proposal is genuine than court [DRT] may also support to you.

Mr. Pawan,

It is not advisable to mix the issues. U r talks with Bank about OTS etc are good and need be continued, but the legal proceeding must be opposed b4 the appropriate forum.

As adviseed by Adv. Goyal Sir, file a Securitazation Appeal b4 the DRT and raise all u r valid contentions.

If u r from Mumbai or Maharashtra u may contact me at - mharit@in.com

It has been categorically mentioned by you to the effect that: 

13(4) notice has already been issued in the matter. According to the bank, they have already taken all the necessary permission for local authorities including DM & police for taking physical possession of the house.

In this view of the matter, my presumption is that the Bank would hardly enter into compromise. And more particularly, when the orders have been obtained by the mortgagees. However, as suggested by Shri Goyal sir, you may prefer an appeal before Debts Recovery Tribunal and take all contentions. You may request the Court as well as the Bankers for "settlement". You can happily concluded, provided the Bankers agree.

OTS are of two different kinds. OTS under bank's cmprehensive corporate's policy. Another OTS policy evolved by RBI. The first one is framed under settlement management policy and is not only discretionay but also discriminatory. Whereas RBI OTS has statutory flavour and is neither discretionary nor discriminatory.

Allahabad High Court in  Sardar Prem Singh Vs. Bank of Baroda & Others III(2004)BC 455(DB) held that the party cannot claim for One Time Settlement (which has no statutory flavour) as the same would amount to rewriting of contract. No court or tribunal has any power to direct parties to enter into contract. Therefore non-statutory OTS cannot be claimed as matter of right. But RBI OTS can be claimed as a matter of right provided the NPA account fits into the RBI OTS norms and the propsal must be in tune with the policy. Supreme Court in Sardar Associates Vs. Punjab & Sindh  Bank: 2009 (8) SCC 257 reversing the the view taken in Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs Sunder Lal Jain & Anr.: AIR 2008 SC 1339,  while fortifying its view taken in Central Bank Of India Vs. Ravindra 2002 (2) CTC 354 (SC) held that (a) RBI is conferred with authority of issuing binding directions and are having statutory force; (b) any violation of RBI guidelines is an offence and attracts punishment within the meaning of Sec 46(4) of Banking Regulations Act 1949.

In my view OTS by RBI is given for a specified period of time beyond which time the borrower loses right to apply for OTS as a matter of right though it can be taken as a matter of convenience by both banker and borrower as a yardstick to arrive at some truce.

Yes I do agree with the view of Mr. Chandrasekhar. Supreme Court in Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunderlal Jain AIR 2008 SC 1339 held that, the OTS proposal should be in tune with the OTS policy. Otherwise it cannot be entertained. This view is not contradicted in Sardar Associates's case referred to above.

I really appreciate the way Mr. CPS Ramachary has put accross his views. Now we have an interesting matter concerning a member of the local industries association. 

He has made OTS with Punjab & Sind Bank by agreeing to pay simple interest @ 15.75% on the entire outstanding on the suit-filed amount till the date of OTS. He was given 12 months interest free period to pay 5.42 crores. After appropriating the 1.0 crore given to the bank with OTS proposal, the bank incorporated a condition in the OTS letter that even after 100% payment, the party will not sell the land for 3 years and if he sells, he will share 50% increase in the value realized over the FMV of the land under bank's right to recompense. (as per RBI guidelines bank is not eligible for recompense in cases of OTS & NS) and it is not a case of CDR.

The party was already tied-up with a buyer who agreed to fund the borrower on the understanding that after making 100% payment to the bank half of the land will be sold to the buyer.

The party moved high-court and the division bench held that this clause could not be sustained and asked the party to make 100% payment before time, the party complied and deposited 100% payment of Rs.5.42 crores although 6 months interest free period was remaining. The HC ordered the bank to deliver possession and title-deed within 15 days. 

The bank accepted the demand draft on High Court record in front of the judges and neither issued receipts nor encashed the bank drafts (which must have expired by now). The bank has also not delivered the possession nor title deed to the party. The general manager of the bank is adament that the party enters into legally binding agreement with bank agreeing not to sell the land for 3 years. 

You can file contempt of court.