Writ jurisdiction cannot extend a One Time Settlement or quash SARFAESI possession notice when statutory remedies remain available.

Writ jurisdiction does not ordinarily compel a bank to extend time or alter the terms of a One Time Settlement once the borrower has failed to remit the amount within the period fixed by the bank. Where overdraft facilities have already been renewed, no further direction for renewal survives. A possession notice under the SARFAESI framework is not liable to be quashed merely because it is said to impede remedies, since the borrower may still approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of securitisation application. The writ petition disclosed no ground for interference, leaving the parties to pursue available statutory remedies.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the bank could be directed under writ jurisdiction to reconsider or extend the time for a One Time Settlement; (ii) whether the bank could be directed to renew overdraft facilities; and (iii) whether notice issued for taking possession under the SARFAESI framework could be quashed on the ground that it prevented the borrower from pursuing statutory remedies.

Issue (i): whether the bank could be directed under writ jurisdiction to reconsider or extend the time for a One Time Settlement.

Analysis: The proposal for settlement had already been considered and the petitioners were permitted to clear the liability within the time fixed by the bank. The amount was not remitted within that period. In writ jurisdiction, the Court cannot compel the bank to extend the time fixed under a settlement arrangement or alter the terms of the settlement.

Conclusion: The relief was declined and the issue was decided against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): whether the bank could be directed to renew overdraft facilities.

Analysis: The record showed that the concerned overdraft facilities had already been renewed, leaving no subsisting cause for a further direction.

Conclusion: The relief was not granted and the issue was decided against the petitioners.

Issue (iii): whether notice issued for taking possession under the SARFAESI framework could be quashed on the ground that it prevented the borrower from pursuing statutory remedies.

Analysis: A notice for taking possession under the SARFAESI procedure does not, by itself, take away the borrower's right to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of a securitization application. The existence of that statutory remedy negatives the challenge based on alleged denial of access to remedies.

Conclusion: The notice was not quashed and the issue was decided against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition did not disclose any ground for interference, and the petitioners were left to work out any available statutory remedies in accordance with law.

---