^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal No.339 of 2010 APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: R.L. Agro Tech Limited, A company registered and incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Industrial Area, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Through its Director Sunil Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Ram Lal Agrawal, aged about 47 years, R/o Bastar Road, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh Versus State Bank of India, Through Assistant General Manager, Stressed Assets Resolution Centre, Zonal Office, Commercial Branch, Byron Bazar, Raipur (CG) Present: Shri Ankit Singhal, counsel for the appellant. Division Bench: Hon^bleShrLDhirendra Mishra^B Hon?ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ, JUDGMENT (4-10-2010) 1. The respondent bank filed a recovery suit before the District Judge for recovery of loan a^lvanced to the appellant. The suit was ultimately transferred to the D.R.T., Jabalpur. During the pendency of the above proceeding before the DRT, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat, DRT with the consent of the parties and the same was disposed of on 1'0-9- 2005. Since the appellant company failed to comply with the order dated 10th September, 2005, the bank applied for issuance of recovery certificate before the DRT and the same was allowed vide order dated 11-12-2009 and recovery certificate was issued against the appellant for recovery of the suit amount. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Debts Recoveiy Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad and the same is pending consideration. .^:^^ ^..•:?" ^ w^^^^, ^Ki^ l ,3a^: 2-3 I 2. The grievance of the appellant is that the respondent bank was not justified in not accepting the appellant's offer for settlement of the outstanding dues under the SBI OTS Scheme. The scheme of one time settlement was framed by the respondent bank as per the guidelines of the RBI whereas the respondent bank was bound to follow the guidelines of the Reser^e Bank of India. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the impugned order. 4. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition with an observation that appeal preferred by the appellant against issuance of recovery certificate is pending before the DRT. The appellant has not averred as to whether the order dated 23-4-2010 was brought to the knowledge of the DRT. Thus, considering the pendency of the appeal before the DRT, learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellanf and considering that the appeal preferred by the appellant herein is pending adjudication before the DRT, we are of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order iinpugned warranting interference of this Court. 6. In the result, the appeal is without any substance, the same deser^e^to be and is hereby dismissed. Barve Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge