Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:3194 an admitted position that the borrower did not make the payment due and payable under the sanctioned OTS Scheme on or before the date mentioned in the sanctioned letter. The prayer of the borrower for extension of nine months came to be rejected as far as back on 16.05.2018 and the borrower was directed to make the payment of Rs.2.52 crores by 21.05.2018, the borrower failed to make the payment.

20. At this stage, it is required to be noted that during the pendency of the writ petition there were as many as three different OTS floated by the Bank and the Bank offered the Respondent-borrower to settle the outstanding payment under the OTS Scheme. However, the borrower did not opt for any of the scheme.

21. By the impugned Judgment and Order the High Court has granted further six weeks' time from 10.03.2022 which would be beyond even the time prayed by the borrower in the year 2018. As observed above earlier period of 8 to 9 months was sought in the year 2018 and by the impugned judgment and order the borrower has got time upto May, 2022.

22. Even otherwise as rightly submitted on behalf of the Bank directing the Bank to reschedule the payment under OTS would tantamount to modification of the contract which can be done by mutual consent Under Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act. By the impugned judgment and order rescheduling the payment under the OTS Scheme and granting extension of time would tantamount to rewriting the contract which is not permissible while exercising the powers Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

23. It is required to be noted that under the OTS Scheme which was originally sanctioned in the year 2017 the borrower was required to

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC:3194 pay Rs. 10,53,75,069.74 against the outstanding of Rs. 13,99,89,273.99. Therefore, under the original sanctioned OTS Scheme the borrower was getting the substantial relief of approximately 3 crores. The Bank agreed and accepted the OTS offer on the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter dated 21.11.2017. In the sanctioned letter dated 21.11.2017 it was specifically mentioned in Clause (iv) that the entire payment under the OTS Scheme was to be made by 21.05.2018, otherwise OTS would be rendered infructuous. Therefore, borrowers were bound to make the payment as per the sanctioned OTS Scheme. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have granted further extension de hors the sanctioned OTS Scheme while exercising the powers Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

24. The submissions on behalf of the borrower that in case of some other borrowers the time was extended is concerned, the same is neither here nor there. The Bank mutually can agree to extend the time which is permissible Under Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act. The borrower as a matter of right cannot claim that though it has not made the payment as per the sanctioned OTS Scheme still it be granted further extension as a matter of right. There cannot be any negative discrimination claimed. The borrower has to establish any right in their favour to claim the extension as a matter of right.