One-time settlement guidelines do not apply after an ex parte decree, even if a set-aside application remains pending.

The RBI one-time settlement guidelines for non-performing asset cases applied only to matters still pending before courts, DRTs or BIFR and required a consent decree. Because an ex parte decree had already been passed, the suit was no longer treated as pending unless that decree was first set aside. A pending application to set aside the decree did not, by itself, bring the matter within the scheme. The court therefore held the guidelines inapplicable and rejected the request for consideration under the settlement scheme.

---

---

Issues: Whether the RBI one-time settlement guidelines applied to a case where the bank had already obtained an ex parte decree, though an application to set aside the decree was pending.

Analysis: The circular covered non-performing asset cases, including matters pending before Courts, DRTs and BIFR, subject to obtaining a consent decree. The proceedings in the present matter had already resulted in an ex parte decree and, until that decree was set aside, the suit could not be treated as still pending. The existence of a pending application to set aside the decree did not bring the matter within the coverage of the guidelines.

Conclusion: The RBI guidelines were held inapplicable to the petitioner's case, and the request for consideration under the one-time settlement scheme was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the settlement scheme was not available once a decree had already been passed.

Ratio Decidendi: A one-time settlement scheme limited to cases pending before court or other adjudicatory forums does not apply where a decree has already been passed, unless and until that decree is set aside.

---