Concluded SARFAESI proceedings cannot be reopened through a subsequent writ petition seeking OTS.

Petitioner No. 2 obtained a loan for petitioner No. 1, secured against immovable property and LIC policies. Following default and classification of the account as an NPA, the Bank initiated proceedings under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

The petitioners’ challenge to those proceedings was dismissed by the DRT; their subsequent challenges before the DRAT, the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court were also unsuccessful, including a direction to make a 25% pre-deposit.

In this petition, the petitioners sought a direction to appropriate ₹1.25 crore under an OTS scheme and regularise the account, or to consider their representation.

1. Whether the petitioners could obtain a writ directing the Bank to appropriate ₹1.25 crore under an OTS scheme and regularise the loan account.

2. Whether the petitioners’ request for OTS relief could be considered when the SARFAESI proceedings had already been challenged through statutory and judicial proceedings that had concluded.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer writ and supervisory jurisdiction, but the Court found no grounds to exercise that jurisdiction in this case.

The Court relied on the principle that a party cannot use a later writ petition to reopen challenges to SARFAESI proceedings already pursued and concluded; such relitigation may be barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata and may constitute an abuse of process.

The judgment states no separate rule conferring an enforceable entitlement to an OTS.

The petitioners had already pursued their challenge to the Bank’s SARFAESI action before the DRT, DRAT, High Court and Supreme Court, without success.

The Court viewed the present petition as, in substance, an attempt to reopen proceedings that had attained finality, notwithstanding its framing as a request for OTS appropriation and account regularisation.

It therefore found no basis for relief under Articles 226 or 227.

No direction was issued to appropriate the ₹1.25 crore payment, regularise the account, or consider the representation.