ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. versus TANYA ENERGY ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI ALLURI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA VARMA

Citation: [2025] 9 S.C.R. 963 · Decided: 15-09-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPANKAR DATTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 963 : 2025 INSC 1119
Assistant General Manager State Bank of India & Anr. 
v. 
Tanya Energy Enterprises Through Its Managing Partner 
Shri Alluri Lakshmi Narasimha Varma
(Civil Appeal No. 11134 of 2025)
15 September 2025
[Dipankar Datta* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether the High Court erred in its interference with the order 
of rejection of the respondent’s application under the One Time 
Settlement 2020 Scheme and directing reconsideration thereof; 
(ii) Whether, a court can uphold an order rejecting an applicant’s 
claim based on a ground appearing from the records of the case 
which could have been but has not been mentioned, if the grounds 
mentioned in such order of rejection are not found to be tenable.
Headnotes†
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and 
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Respondent 
availed credit facilities from the SBI by mortgaging 7 immovable 
properties – Respondent defaulted – While proceedings were 
pending before the DRT, SBI introduced One Time Settlement 
Scheme (OTS 2020 Scheme) – Respondent filed application 
for OTS – The first appellant referred to the previous conduct 
of the respondent of having failed to comply with the order 
passed by the DRT, seeking extension of time to make deposit 
which was declined resulting in vacation of the interim order 
of stay, sale by auction of one mortgaged property as well 
as suppression of facts – These constituted the grounds for 
rejection of the application for OTS – Writ Petition – The Single 
Judge of the High Court held that respondent was entitled 
to the benefit of the OTS 2020 Scheme – The appeal against 
the same was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High 
Court – Correctness:
Held: The High Court was not justified in its interference with 
the order of rejection – OTS 2020 Scheme was launched by the 
* Author
964
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
SBI to augment efforts towards recovery of outstanding dues – 
Every borrower in default, to have his application under the OTS 
2020 Scheme considered, was required to apply together with 
an up-front payment of 5% of the OTS amount – While applying 
for the benefit of the OTS 2020 Scheme, respondent did not 
deposit a single paisa towards up-front payment – Thus, in the 
first place, the respondent’s application was incomplete and it did 
not have any right in law to claim that such application should 
be processed – Significantly, the first appellant did not reject the 
application of the respondent on the ground of its failure to deposit 
5% of the OTS amount – The High Court missed this aspect 
altogether – Indubitably, the respondent faltered in not adhering 
to the express terms of such scheme by not depositing 5% of 
the outstanding dues as up-front payment, thereby rendering its 
application disentitled to be processed even, far less deserving 
a favourable consideration – This ground is not mentioned as a 
ground for rejection of the respondent’s application – However, 
this ground is fundamental to the case, strikes at the heart of the 
matter and fully justifies the conclusion in the impugned order of 
rejection that the respondent, by its own conduct, did not and does 
not deserve to be extended the benefit of the OTS under the OTS 
2020 Scheme – Thus, dismissal of the intra-court appeal of the 
appellants by the impugned judgment and order of the Division 
Bench is set aside together with the judgment and order of the 
Single Judge of the High Court. [Paras 24, 25, 27-29, 39, 40, 44]
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and 
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Respondent 
filed application for One Time Settlement 2020 Scheme – 
Application rejected – Whether, a court can uphold an order 
rejecting an applicant’s claim based on a ground appearing 
from the records of the case which could have been but has 
not been mentioned, if the grounds mentioned in such order 
of rejection are not found to be tenable:
Held: While the courts, in course of reviewing administrative 
orders, may not permit additional grounds not found within the 
four corners of the said order to be raised in an affidavit or in 
oral arguments, this Court is inclined to the view that the factual 
narrative in such order and the documents referred to therein can 
certainly be considered together with the case set up in the writ 
petition, but in appropriate cases – Such cases could include a 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.