Published: · Source checked:
DRAT Delhi set aside an order pressing State Bank of India to accept a particular one-time settlement in Laxmi Devi. Its 21 October 2026 decision preserved the bank's applicable settlement rules and procedure. It did not determine the borrower's final liability or dispose of the underlying securitisation challenge on its merits. Order, paragraphs 1–4.
Order at a glance
| Detail | Verified record |
|---|---|
| Tribunal | DRAT, Delhi |
| Chairperson | Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain |
| Case | Misc. Appeal No. 52/2020; S.A. No. 357/2015 |
| Order date | |
| Parties | State Bank of India v. Laxmi Devi and another |
The settlement direction under challenge
The appeal arose from an order dated 19 February 2020 in S.A. 357/2015. That order called for a conscious settlement decision and required the bank's Zonal Head to file an affidavit and appear. The appellate record also referred to an earlier DRAT order of 5 March 2020. The bank argued that the DRT could not compel acceptance of the proposal submitted on behalf of the respondent. Paragraphs 1–2.
The short appellate order does not reproduce a complete settlement policy or adjudicate whether every policy condition was met. That omission matters: this is a decision about the challenged direction in this record, not an independently researched guide to eligibility under all bank OTS schemes.
What DRAT accepted
Paragraph 3 accepts that the bank could not be forced to accept the particular OTS. It states that settlement could occur under the bank's rules, regulations and established procedure. DRAT therefore set aside the 19 February 2020 order and directed continuation of the S.A. trial in accordance with law. It also removed the requirement of the Zonal Head's physical presence under that order. Paragraph 3.
Two distinctions preserve the result's meaning. First, setting aside compelled acceptance does not prohibit a voluntary settlement made under the applicable framework. Second, it does not establish that the bank's enforcement action was otherwise lawful. The underlying application remained to be tried.
The source refers to DRT-III in describing the originating proceedings, then records that the S.A. was now pending before DRT-II and directs that a copy be sent there. This note preserves that procedural history without treating the references as separate final adjudications. Paragraphs 1–4.
How to frame a settlement dispute accurately
A useful file separates the settlement proposal, the bank's governing policy, its decision on the proposal, and the relief sought from the DRT. A request to consider a proposal, an asserted entitlement under a particular policy, and a direction to accept a specified figure are different forms of relief. The order addresses the last problem as presented here; it does not decide every possible challenge to a bank's exercise of discretion.
For counsel, the practical lesson is to identify the actual decision under attack. A pending S.A. should not be described as concluded merely because a settlement-related direction has been reversed. Equally, the removal of an appearance requirement is procedural relief, not a declaration that an officer or borrower has been exonerated from every allegation. These are analytical distinctions drawn from the limited operative order.
Questions about the result
Did the borrowers lose the securitisation case?
The order does not decide that. It sets aside the settlement-related direction and requires the S.A. trial to proceed.
Did DRAT ban an OTS between the parties?
No. Its reasoning preserves settlement under the bank's applicable framework; it rejects forcing acceptance of this particular proposal. Paragraph 3.
Primary source and research scope
Official DRAT order, 21 October 2026, paragraphs 1–4, both original pages. The analysis reports that decision as delivered. Primary source and statutory references were checked on 1 November 2026; later treatment has not been exhaustively established. No absence of an appeal, stay, variation or subsequent compliance is asserted.