# M/S Jaharveer Maharaj Agro Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Union Of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 790
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-20
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1969 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Praveen Kumar Giri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-jaharveer-maharaj-agro-pvt-ltd-anr-v-union-of-india-ors-53761
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Mr. Sanjai Singh

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether, after having entered
into One Time Settlement Agreement dated
10.05.2023
under
Simplified
One
Time
Settlement Scheme 2022-23, petitioners, who
failed to make payment of settled amount within
stipulated period of 180 days as prescribed in
Clauses 7.3 to 7.5 of Scheme, could lawfully
seek enforcement or continuation of said OTS
through writ petition under Article 226, and
whether Bank's cancellation of OTS and
subsequent sale of mortgaged property u/s
13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 was liable to be
interfered with by High Court on grounds of
arbitrariness or violation of any vested right of
petitioners.

Headnotes
Securitization
and
Reconstruction
of
Financial
Assets
and
Enforcement
of
Security Interest Act, 2002 - ss. 13(2),
13(4)
-
Petitioners
and
another,
a
borrower company and its guarantor,
availed
a
cash
credit
limit
of
₹1,00,00,000/-, an overdraft facility of
₹10,00,000/-,
and
a
term
loan
of
₹2,80,00,000/- from respondent Bank in
2017, however, due to financial distress,
their loan accounts were declared nonperforming assets (NPAs) on 10.05.2021 -
Thereafter, petitioners applied for and
were granted a One Time Settlement
(OTS) under Bank's Simplified One Time
Settlement Scheme (SOTS) 2022-23 vide
letter
dated
10.05.2023,
stipulating
repayment within 180 day - Despite
repeated reminders, petitioners failed to
deposit settled amount within prescribed
period, leading Bank to cancel OTS by
orders dated 25.04.2024, 10.05.2024, and
22.05.2024,
and
subsequently
issue
auction notices u/s 13(4) of SARFAESI
Act, 2002 - One of mortgaged properties
was
sold
on
27.01.2025,
and
sale
certificate was issued on 02.02.2025 in
favour of auction purchaser - Aggrieved
thereby, petitioners filed instant petiton,
contending that OTS remained valid and
Bank acted arbitrarily in cancelling same
8 All. M/S Jaharveer Maharaj Agro Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
791
and auctioning secured assets without
affording them adequate opportunity to
comply with settlement terms.
Held: Petitioners have failed to comply with
OTS Scheme - They have raised grounds stating
that OTS Scheme is still alive as SOTS Scheme
was not known to them - This argument cannot
be countenanced and rejected for simple reason
that
letter
granting
OTS
to
petitioners
specifically refers to SOTS Scheme - Secondly,
any OTS is time bound and petitioners cannot
raise argument that no time frame was fixed for
making repayment of same just because time
frame has not been provided in letter granting
OTS - Letter dated May 10, 2023 granting OTS
to petitioners specifically refers to SOTS Scheme
2022-23 and said Scheme provides that
maximum repayment period would be 180 days
- Accordingly, none of cases cited by petitioners
support their claim of a vested right to seek
extension of time under OTS Scheme -
Petitioners have shown no valid reason for nonpayment within 180-day period prescribed under
Clauses 7.3 to 7.5 of SOTS Scheme 2022-23 -
Bank's cancellation of OTS and sale of secured
assets in accordance with law to third parties,
in whose favour third party rights have been
created and sale certificates issued, cannot be
faulted - In these circumstances, no interference
is warranted with Bank's bona fide action.
[Paras 5, 11] (E-13)
Case Law Cited
M/s Rima Transformers and Conductors Pvt.
Ltd. v. Canara Bank reported in 2022 Law
Suit (Kar) 3002; M/s R.S. Mills; Harjinder
Singh v. Debts Recovery Tribunal-I; State
Bank of India reported in Law Suit (P&H)
983; Md. Afroz Baig v. State Bank of India,
Mumbai and another reported in 2022 SCC
Online TS 1804; Hardayal Singh Cheema
v. State Bank of India and another reported
in 2022 SCC Online P&H 4400 -
distinguished

M/s Samarth Woolen Mills and another v. Indian
Bank (erstwhile Allahabad Bank) reported in
Law Suit (P&H) 669; referred to

List of Acts
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002

## Text

790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
64 and, thus, cannot be allotted the land in
question.

28. It is clear from the facts of the case
and pleading of the parties that the
international airport is coming up in the
District Kushinagar for which additional
land is needed for ILS (Instrument Landing
System) - Glide Path for which Gaon
Sabha is transferring the land to the
authorities for extension of the airport and
the runway central line.

29.
Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, I find that no
interference is required with the orders
impugned. Petitioners are liable to be
evicted from the land of Gaon Sabha,
which has been recorded as Banjar
Category 5 (3) land since the consolidation
proceedings of the year 1990.

30. All the writ petitions fail and are
hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any,
stands discharged. Revenue authorities to
comply the eviction order within a period
of three weeks.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 790
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Writ C No. 1969 of 2025

M/S Jaharveer Maharaj Agro Pvt. Ltd. &
Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma
Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Sanjai Singh

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether, after having entered
into One Time Settlement Agreement dated
10.05.2023
under
Simplified
One
Time
Settlement Scheme 2022-23, petitioners, who
failed to make payment of settled amount within
stipulated period of 180 days as prescribed in
Clauses 7.3 to 7.5 of Scheme, could lawfully
seek enforcement or continuation of said OTS
through writ petition under Article 226, and
whether Bank's cancellation of OTS and
subsequent sale of mortgaged property u/s
13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 was liable to be
interfered with by High Court on grounds of
arbitrariness or violation of any vested right of
petitioners.

Headnotes
Securitization
and
Reconstruction
of
Financial
Assets
and
Enforcement
of
Security Interest Act, 2002 - ss. 13(2),
13(4)
-
Petitioners
and
another,
a
borrower company and its guarantor,
availed
a
cash
credit
limit
of
₹1,00,00,000/-, an overdraft facility of
₹10,00,000/-,
and
a
term
loan
of
₹2,80,00,000/- from respondent Bank in
2017, however, due to financial distress,
their loan accounts were declared nonperforming assets (NPAs) on 10.05.2021 -
Thereafter, petitioners applied for and
were granted a One Time Settlement
(OTS) under Bank's Simplified One Time
Settlement Scheme (SOTS) 2022-23 vide
letter
dated
10.05.2023,
stipulating
repayment within 180 day - Despite
repeated reminders, petitioners failed to
deposit settled amount within prescribed
period, leading Bank to cancel OTS by
orders dated 25.04.2024, 10.05.2024, and
22.05.2024,
and
subsequently
issue
auction notices u/s 13(4) of SARFAESI
Act, 2002 - One of mortgaged properties
was
sold
on
27.01.2025,
and
sale
certificate was issued on 02.02.2025 in
favour of auction purchaser - Aggrieved
thereby, petitioners filed instant petiton,
contending that OTS remained valid and
Bank acted arbitrarily in cancelling same
8 All. M/S Jaharveer Maharaj Agro Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
791
and auctioning secured assets without
affording them adequate opportunity to
comply with settlement terms.
Held: Petitioners have failed to comply with
OTS Scheme - They have raised grounds stating
that OTS Scheme is still alive as SOTS Scheme
was not known to them - This argument cannot
be countenanced and rejected for simple reason
that
letter
granting
OTS
to
petitioners
specifically refers to SOTS Scheme - Secondly,
any OTS is time bound and petitioners cannot
raise argument that no time frame was fixed for
making repayment of same just because time
frame has not been provided in letter granting
OTS - Letter dated May 10, 2023 granting OTS
to petitioners specifically refers to SOTS Scheme
2022-23 and said Scheme provides that
maximum repayment period would be 180 days
- Accordingly, none of cases cited by petitioners
support their claim of a vested right to seek
extension of time under OTS Scheme -
Petitioners have shown no valid reason for nonpayment within 180-day period prescribed under
Clauses 7.3 to 7.5 of SOTS Scheme 2022-23 -
Bank's cancellation of OTS and sale of secured
assets in accordance with law to third parties,
in whose favour third party rights have been
created and sale certificates issued, cannot be
faulted - In these circumstances, no interference
is warranted with Bank's bona fide action.
[Paras 5, 11] (E-13)
Case Law Cited
M/s Rima Transformers and Conductors Pvt.
Ltd. v. Canara Bank reported in 2022 Law
Suit (Kar) 3002; M/s R.S. Mills; Harjinder
Singh v. Debts Recovery Tribunal-I; State
Bank of India reported in Law Suit (P&H)
983; Md. Afroz Baig v. State Bank of India,
Mumbai and another reported in 2022 SCC
Online TS 1804; Hardayal Singh Cheema
v. State Bank of India and another reported
in 2022 SCC Online P&H 4400 -
distinguished

M/s Samarth Woolen Mills and another v. Indian
Bank (erstwhile Allahabad Bank) reported in
Law Suit (P&H) 669; referred to

List of Acts
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002

List of Keywords
Article 226 of Constitution of India; Certiorari;
Mandamus;
One
Time
Settlement
(OTS);
Cancellation Order; Sale/Auction Notice; Sale of
Immovable Properties; Non-Performing Asset
(NPA); Property mortgaged; Cash Credit Limit;
Overdraft Facility; Term Loan; OTS Scheme /
SOTS Scheme 2022-23; Clause 7.3 to 7.5 of
Scheme; Repayment Period of 180 Days;
Default in Compliance; Rejection of OTS;
Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002; Sale
Certificate; Auction Purchaser; Representation
submitted by petitioners; Failure to comply with
OTS Scheme; Time-bound scheme; Bonafide
action of Bank; Extension of time; Cancellation
of OTS; Writ of Certiorari to quash; Direction to
accept balance amount; Interfere with the
action of the Bank; Third-party rights created.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ-C NO.1969 OF
2025

From the Order dated 25.04.2024, 10.05.2024,
22.05.2024 and 16.12.2024 of Punjab National
Bank, Recovery Department, Hathras

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners:
Vijay Kumar Sharma

Adv. for the Respondent:
Sanjai Singh
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

1. This is a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India wherein the
writ petitioners are aggrieved by the
cancellation of the One Time Settlement
that was offered by the Bank. The prayers
in the writ petition are as follows:-

"a. A writ order or direction in
the nature of certiorari call for the record
and to quash the first One Time Settlement
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cancelation
Order
dated
25/04/2024,
second One Time Settlement Cancelation
Order dated 10/05/2024, third One Time
Settlement
Cancelation
Order
dated
22/05/2024 and also Sale/Auction notice
dated 16/12/2024 all are issued by the
respondent no.4 (Annexure no. 1, 2, 3 and
4 to this writ petition).

b. A writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding and
directed the respondent Bank not to
proceeded further and also stay the entire
proceeding initiated in pursuance of One
Time Settlement Cancelation Orders dated
25/04/2024, 10/05/2024 and 22/05/2024
and Sale Notice for Sale of Immovable
Properties
dated
16/12/2024
till
the
disposal of the present writ petition.

c. A writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding
and directing the respondent no. 6, to
accept
the
entire
balance
amount/remaining amount dues as per
the terms and condition prescribed in
the paragraph no. 2 and 6 of the One
Time
Settlement
dated
10/05/2023
(Annexure no. 7 to this writ petition),
after deducting the deposited amount
deposited by the petitioners within the
period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

d. A writ order or direction in the
nature
of
mandamus
directing
and
commanding the respondent no. 4 to 6 not
to interfere in peaceful possession of both
the
petitioners'
properties
except
in
accordance with law.

e. A writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding and
directing the respondent no. 4 to 6 do not
take any coercive action against the
property mortgaged by the petitioners.

f. A writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding and
directed the respondent no. 4, to consider
and passed appropriate order on the
representation
dated
04/11/2024
and
03/01/2025 submitted by the petitioner
Company for compliance the terms and
condition prescribed in the paragraph no. 2
and 6 of the One Time Settlement dated
10/05/2023 expeditiously within a suitable
period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court
(Annexure no. 15 and 17 to this writ
petition).

..."

2. The facts of the present case, as
emerge from the pleadings of the parties,
are as under:-

(a) The petitioners, a registered
company, took a Cash Credit Limit of
Rs.1,00,00,000/- and also Over Draft
Facility of Rs.10,00,000/- as well as a Term
Loan of Rs.2,80,000,00/- in the year 2017.
On May 10, 2021, as the petitioners could
not maintain payment of the loan accounts,
due to financial constraint, the loan
accounts were declared as non performing
asset.

(b) On March 31, 2023, the
petitioners
deposited
a
sum
of
Rs.34,50,000/- and applied for the One
Time Settlement, and thereafter, on May
10, 2023, the bank and the petitioners have
entered into an agreement for One Time
Settlement.

(c) On April 25, 2024, as the
petitioners failed to comply with the OTS
Scheme, the Bank rejected the OTS and
further declared the account of the
petitioners as a non performing asset.
Thereafter, on October 8, 2024 auction
8 All. M/S Jaharveer Maharaj Agro Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
793
notice
was
published.
As
per
the
petitioners,
they
have
made
several
representations to the Bank but the Bank
without considering the same, again issued
auction notice dated October 22, 2024
under Section 13(4) of the Securitization
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

(d) The petitioners filed a writ
petition bearing Writ-C No.36133 of 2024
before this Court which was disposed of on
November 5, 2024 directing the petitioners
to deposit 20% of the amount indicated in
the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act
and thereafter remaining amount was to be
paid in three equal bimonthly installments.

(e) Thereafter, the guarantor
namely Kali Charan Sharma approached
this Court by means of Writ-C No.42166 of
2024 that was disposed of granting liberty
to the guarantor to approach the Bank.

(f) On December 16, 2024 sale
notice was issued for sale of the immovable
properties of the petitioners and the
guarantor. Thereafter, the Bank has sold
one mortgage property on January 27, 2025
and the sale certificate has also been issued
in favour of the auction purchaser on
February 2, 2025.

3. It is clear from the above facts that
the petitioners agreed on a One Time
Settlement (hereinafter referred to as the
'OTS') with the Bank and the Bank issued a
letter dated May 10, 2023 to the petitioners
wherein the terms and conditions were laid
down. The letter specifically refers to the
SOTS Scheme 2022-23. Upon perusal of the
SOTS Scheme, it is clear from Clause 7.3 to
7.5 that OTS Scheme would be applicable for
a maximum repayment period of 180 days.
The above clauses are delineated below:-

"7.3 Party to be impressed
upon to deposit OTS amount within 90
days of approval of OTS.

7.4 In case the entire OTS
amount, as per the terms finalized in the
sanction, is paid within 90 days of
conveying approval to the borrower, no
interest will be charged. However, simple
interest @ MCLR for one-year (applicable
on the date of sanction) plus 1% on
reducing balance basis will be charged
where OTS amount is paid beyond 90 days,
effective from the date of Sanction.

7.5 The maximum repayment
period for the said scheme will be 180
days. In case any borrower fails to pay OTS
amount, respective sanctioning authority
may consider extension of time period upto
aggregate of 180 days from the date of
conveying approval."

4. From the facts, it is further clear
that the Bank wrote to the petitioners on
several occasions to complete payment of
OTS amount but on one pretext or the
other, the payment was not made.

5. Counsel on behalf of the petitioners
submits that as per the OTS, approximately
a sum of Rs.33,00,000/- is payable while
the counsel appearing on behalf of the
Bank submits that as the OTS has failed,
the remaining balance is approximately
Rs.1,33,00,000/-. In light of the above, we
are of the view that we cannot, in any
manner, come to the assistance of the
petitioners as the petitioners have failed to
comply with the OTS Scheme. The
petitioners have raised grounds stating that
the OTS Scheme is still alive as the SOTS
Scheme was not known to them. This
argument cannot be countenanced by us
and is outrightly rejected for the simple
794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reason that the letter granting OTS to the
petitioners specifically refers to the SOTS
Scheme. Secondly, any OTS is time bound
and the petitioners cannot raise the
argument that no time frame was fixed for
making the repayment of the same just
because time frame has not been provided
in the letter granting OTS. The letter dated
May 10, 2023 granting OTS to the
petitioners specifically refers to the SOTS
Scheme 2022-23 and the said Scheme
clearly
provides
that
the
maximum
repayment period would be 180 days.

6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners has relied on the judgment of
the Karnataka High Court in the case of
M/s Rima Transformers and Conductors
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank reported in
2022 Law Suit (Kar) 3002, judgment of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the
case of M/s R.S. Mills; Harjinder Singh
vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal-I; State
Bank of India reported in Law Suit
(P&H) 983, judgment of the Telangana
High Court in the case of Md. Afroz Baig
vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai and
another reported in 2022 SCC Online TS
1804, the judgment of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in the case of M/s
Samarth Woolen Mills and another vs.
Indian Bank (erstwhile Allahabad Bank)
reported in Law Suit (P&H) 669 and
another judgment of Punjab and Haryana
High Court in the case of Hardayal Singh
Cheema vs. State Bank of India and
another reported in 2022 SCC Online
P&H 4400 to buttress his argument that the
Bank is mandatorily required to extend the
period under the OTS and the writ Court
has power to allow such extension and
grant relief to the petitioners.

7.
In
the
case
of
M/s
Rima
Transformers and Conductors (supra),
the petitioner had deposited the entire
amount before the deadline fixed by the
Bank but the Bank later unilaterally
withdrew
the
OTS
offer.
In
those
circumstances, the Court interfered in the
matter. This case is clearly distinguishable
from the present case in hand.

8. In M/s R.S. Mills (supra), the Court
had held that since the sale certificate had
not been issued, the borrower's right to
redeem the mortgage had not been lost.
This case is also clearly distinguishable
from the present case in hand as it is not
similar to the facts involved in the present
case.

9. In Md. Afroz Baig (supra), the
petitioner had delayed the payment by only
one day and the Court taking into
consideration the fact that the petitioner
had made efforts to pay the amount by
selling his agricultural land, in the peculiar
facts and circumstances, directed the Bank
to accept the OTS payment. As is evident
from the facts of the case, this case does
not come to the rescue of the petitioners.

10. One need not join issue with the
judgment in the case of M.s Samarth
Woollen
Mills
(supra)
which
has
simpliciter laid down guidelines in cases of
OTS Scheme. Furthermore, the judgment in
Hardayal Singh Cheema (supra) that has
been referred to by the petitioners, is a case
of COVID-19 pandemic being involved,
and accordingly, some relief was granted to
the petitioner in that case keeping the
COVID-19 pandemic in mind. This case
has no application in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.

11. In light of above, we are of the
view that none of the cases cited by the
petitioners come to their rescue as they do
8 All. M/S Ramesh Dyeing And Washing, Ghaziabad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
795
not lay down any ratio that the petitioners
have a vested right to demand an extension
of time limit that has been provided under
the OTS Scheme. The petitioners have not
been able to provide any plausible reason
as to why the payment was not made
within 180 days as prescribed under
Clauses 7.3 to 7.5 of the SOTS Scheme
2022-23. Owing to the same, we cannot
fault the Bank for proceeding to cancel the
OTS provided to the petitioners and
selling the securities in accordance with
law to third parties. It is to be further
noted that third party rights have already
been created and the sale certificate has
also been issued. In these circumstances,
we do not see any reason to interfere with
the action taken by the Bank which has
proceeded in a bonafide manner.

12. In view of the aforesaid, the writ
petition is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 795
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 7305 of 2025

M/S
Ramesh
Dyeing
And
Washing,
Ghaziabad ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Jalaj Kumar Gupta, Mehdi Khan, Mohd.
Aslam Khan, Tarannum Sana

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ashok Kumar Verma, Chandra
Shekhar Pandey
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether U.P. Pollution Control Board has
jurisdiction
to
impose
environmental
compensation and whether the writ petition is
liable to be entertained despite availability of an
alternative statutory remedy under Section 16 of
the NGT Act, 2010.

HEADNOTE
Environmental Law - Pollution Control Board -
Jurisdiction - Environmental Compensation -
Polluter Pays Principle - Supreme Court affirms
authority
of
Boards
to
impose
restitutionary/compensatory
damages
-
Statutory remedy under Section 16, NGT Act
available - Writ petition filed after long delay -
Discretion under Article 226 declined - Petition
dismissed.
Held :
Environmental Law - Closure direction and
environmental compensation of Rs.14,20,000/-
imposed under Section 33A of the Water Act,
1974 challenged - Contention that State Board
lacks jurisdiction to impose environmental
compensation rejected - In Civil Appeal No.757760 of 2013, Delhi Pollution Control Committee
v. Lodhi Property Company Ltd. the Apex Court
has held that Pollution Control Boards can
impose
and
collect,
as
restitutionary
or
compensatory damages, fixed sum of monies or
require furnishing of bank guarantees as exante measures towards potential or actual
environmental damage - Pollution Control Board
has
the
authority/jurisdiction
to
impose
environmental compensation - High Court's writ
jurisdiction not ousted, but discretionary -
Effective
statutory
appeal
provided
under
Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010 not availed
within limitation - Writ petition filed after more
than three years - High Court declined to
exercise writ jurisdiction - Petition dismissed.
(E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
1. Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan
Trust v. State of GujaratCivil Appeal No. 1046 of
2019, decided on 21.01.2022 (SC) ;
2. Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Lodhi
Property Company Ltd. & Ors, Civil Appeal Nos.
757-760 of 2013, decided on 04.08.2025 (SC);
3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC
395;