LPA No.257/2009 Page No.1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA No. 257/2009 SMT. SAROJA K.(PROP.) & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. S.R. Singh, Advocate. versus GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL O R D E R % 26.05.2009 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 27th March, 2009. 2. The appellants (original petitioners in the writ petition) sought a direction in the writ petition to the respondents (original respondents in the writ petition) to settle, in accordance with the One Time Settlement Scheme (in short ‘OTS Scheme’) formulated by Delhi Financial Corporation (in short ‘DFC’). The appellant had been sanctioned a term loan by DFC. Since there was default in payment of installments to service the loan, DFC issued a notice to the appellant. The appellant thereafter sought permission from DFC to sell the machinery which was granted. The Assistant Collector (Recovery) passed an order attaching the salaries of the guarantors who are appellants Nos. 2 and 3 in the present proceedings. They preferred an appeal to the Collector which was pending when they filed the writ petition in this Court. The Court had, after issuance of notice stayed the impugned order of attachment. LPA No.257/2009 Page No.2 of 3 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the DFC filed an application for direction, stating about the formulation of OTS Scheme on 26th February, 2004. As per the DFC, the outstanding balance as on 25th March, 2000 of the appellant was Rs.10,70,422.40/-, excluding the interest. As per the OTS Scheme, the appellant had to pay Rs. 4,59,543.43/- to settle the matter fully and finally. The DFC further contended that the appellant had been called for negotiations sometime in 2005 but she failed to avail of the offer. It was also stated on behalf of DFC that if the appellant approached the DFC, her case shall be reviewed under the OTS Scheme. The learned single Judge rightly held that in view of averments made in the application moved by DFC, the liabilities of the appellant had been vastly reduced and DFC was willing to consider the appellant’s request for settlement. In view of the same and taking into account the health of the appellant as also the generally prevailing economic conditions, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the DFC to consider the appellant’s request sympathetically and extend the OTS Scheme to enable settlement of its dues by the appellant. 4. It was now sought to be contended by the appellant that she was entitled to a settlement under the OTS Scheme 2001 and not under OTS Scheme 2004. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to OTS Scheme 2001 at page-17 of the paper book. One of the conditions in the said scheme was that the proposal had to be LPA No.257/2009 Page No.3 of 3 submitted by the applicant along with a demand draft/pay order equivalent to 25% of outstanding dues as on date. The learned counsel for the respondents then referred to the application of the appellant under the OTS Scheme 2001 at page-19 of the paper book. In the said application, there was no mention of the proposal to deposit equivalent of 25% of the outstanding dues along with the application. Thus, as per the counsel for the respondents, the appellant was not found complying with the conditions stipulated under the OTS Scheme of 2001 and there was no question of considering its case under the said scheme. 6. We find no infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge, which is a fair, reasonable, just and equitable order giving an opportunity to the appellant to apply under the OTS Scheme of 2004. As per the DFC, in their averments have been made before the learned single Judge if the appellant were to apply under the said scheme for settlement, her liabilities would be vastly reduced and the request for settlement would be considered. 7. Accordingly, the appeal must fail. The appeal is dismissed. All applications stand disposed of as well. CHIEF JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J. MAY 26, 2009 sb