Writ jurisdiction cannot compel a bank to accept a one-time settlement offer in a purely contractual loan dispute.

In disputes arising purely from contractual loan liability, a writ court will not compel a bank to accept a one-time settlement offer or interfere with recovery proceedings unless a statutory duty or legal violation is shown. The bank's decision on settlement is a commercial decision, and an expired time-bound OTS arrangement cannot be revived through Article 226 in the absence of an error apparent on the record or breach of law. Relief by mandamus was therefore unavailable, and the petitioners were not entitled to enforcement of the revised settlement offer.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ court can compel a bank to accept a one-time settlement offer and interfere with recovery proceedings arising out of a contractual loan liability.

Analysis: The dispute concerned recovery of bank dues and the petitioners sought a direction to the bank to accept a revised settlement offer. The liability arose from a loan transaction and the bank's decision regarding settlement was a commercial decision taken in the context of a time-bound OTS arrangement that had already expired. No statutory duty was shown requiring the bank to accept the offer. In the absence of violation of law or an error apparent on the record, Article 226 could not be invoked to enforce a concession or to revive an expired settlement arrangement.

Conclusion: A writ of mandamus could not be issued to compel the bank to accept the one-time settlement offer, and the petitioners were not entitled to relief under Article 226.

Ratio Decidendi: In matters arising purely from contractual loan liability, the writ court will not compel a bank to accept a settlement or reschedule recovery unless a statutory duty or legal violation is shown.

---