JASBIR SINGH,J - (1.) : (ORAL)
(2.) PRIMARY contention raised by counsel for the petitioners is that while granting benefit of 'one time settlement' the account of the petitioners has been termed as sub-standard, whereas it should have been considered as 'NPA doubtful' on 31-3-2000. It is apparent from the record that under the scheme, the petitioners made an application for 'one time settlement' which was accepted by the respondent-bank vide resolution dated 11-6-2003 (Annexure R-2). The petitioner No.1 agreed to the same and signed that -2-CWP No.11696 of 2005 resolution. Pursuant `to the said resolution, the proposal was approved by the Board of Directors vide Annexure R-3 and permission was granted to the petitioners to deposit the amount in 12 equal monthly instalments. After settlement vide Annexure R-2, nothing was paid by the petitioners and thereafter the present writ petition has been filed. From perusal of the record, it is clear that the consent was given by the petitioners to the resolution Annexure R-2 vide which, amount to be paid, by the petitioners was settled. We are of the view that no case is made out for interference. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.;