Disposed¶36

M/S Crescent Earth Movers and Constructions and v. the Authorized Officer

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2026WP/9591/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, WP No. 9591 of 2022 (GM-RES), decided 16.06.2026 by M.G.S. Kamal, J. Keywords: SARFAESI Act 2002; One Time Settlement (OTS) — not a matter of right; Article 226 mandamus; representation dated 07.05.2022; O.A.No.994/2021 DRT Bengaluru; Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda Banashankari Branch; Crescent Earth Movers and Constructions; liberty to submit fresh OTS representation within 30 days; Bank to consider and pass orders within 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; petitioner granted liberty to submit a fresh OTS representation within 30 days, and the respondent Bank directed to consider it in accordance with law and pass orders within 60 days, subject to the applicable rules, regulations and loan terms. ¶36

M/S Crescent Earth Movers and Constructions and Vs… — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Bank to consider its representation dated 07.05.2022 for One Time Settlement (OTS). +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation seeking One Time Settlement (OTS) within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

One Time Settlement cannot be claimed as a matter of right unless the rules governing the same have been breached in an arbitrary manner by the respondent; in the absence of any such material, no case for grant of the relief sought was made out.

¶30

Key takeaways

If a fresh representation is submitted and is permissible under the applicable rules, regulations and terms of the loan agreement, the respondent Bank shall consider it in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within 60 days from receipt of the representation.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SARFAESI Act, 2002 — Writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus to direct the Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.05.2022 for One Time Settlement (OTS), in a matter where O.A.No.994/2021 was pending before the DRT, Bengaluru — Held: One Time Settlement cannot be claimed as a matter of right unless the rules governing the same have been breached in an arbitrary manner by the respondent; in the absence of any such material, no case for the relief sought was made out. Petition disposed of with liberty to submit a fresh OTS representation within 30 days; if permissible under the applicable rules, regulations and loan terms, the Bank to consider it in accordance with law and pass orders within 60 days (M.G.S. Kamal, J.).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29178 WP No. 9591 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.9591 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S CRESCENT EARTH MOVERS AND CONSTRUCTIONS AND SRI.MOHAMMAD SHEEZ S/O SRI.K.A.ABDUL RAHIMAN AGED 34 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.421 E BLOCK, 4^TH FLOOR, NEELADRI MAHAL NANDIDURG ROAD JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION BENSON TOWN BANGALORE-560046

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SANDHYA U PRABHU, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER BANK OF BARODA BANASHANKARI BRANCH NO.266, 293 SREENIVASANAGAR BANASHANKARI 1^ST STAGE 2^ND PHASE, 80 FEET ROAD BANGALORE-560050

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI.VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29178 WP No. 9591 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.05.2022 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER FOR ONE TIME SETTLEMENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E ON THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND GROUNDS AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed in the light of the proceedings initiated by the respondent under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act, 2002').

¶25

The records reveal that the respondent - Bank has initiated proceedings in O.A.No.994/2021 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru. The present petition is filed seeking relief in nature of mandamus directing the

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29178 WP No. 9591 of 2022

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner

¶29

for One Time Settlement (OTS).

¶30

It is settled principle of law that One Time Settlement cannot be claimed as a matter of right unless the rules governing the same have been breached in an arbitrary manner by the respondent. In the absence of any such material, no case for grant of relief sought is made out.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that if fresh representation is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶32

Submission is placed on record.

¶33

In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass

¶34

the following;

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(i) The petition stands disposed off.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:29178 WP No. 9591 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

(ii) The petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh representation seeking One Time Settlement (OTS) within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41

(iii) If such representation is submitted and if the same is permissible under the applicable rules, regulations and terms of the loan agreement, the respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within 60 days from the date of receipt of representation.

¶42

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶43

NBM

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

M/S Crescent Earth Movers and Constructions and v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Crescent Earth Movers and Constructions and v. the Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ganesh Nayak Vs the Commissioner for Rti Karnataka

Sri Krishnappa Vs Sri Puttaswamy

Sri. B. G. Shivakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Mamatha Bai Vs Mrs.Mr.Krishnoji Rao

Sri Krishna Tantri Vs Rajya Dharmika Parishat

Pankaj L. Kothari Vs the Reserve Bank of India