In Assistant General Manager SBI v. Tanya Energy Enterprises (Supreme Court, Sept 15, 2025), the borrower defaulted on repayment of ₹8+ crore despite mortgaging seven properties. SBI offered a settlement under the OTS 2018 and later the OTS 2020 scheme, but the borrower failed to comply with mandatory conditions, including depositing 5% upfront. The High Court had directed SBI to reconsider the OTS application. The Supreme Court held that there is no absolute right to OTS; grant of benefits is at the bank’s discretion, subject to compliance with eligibility criteria. The borrower’s failure to deposit the upfront amount rendered the application incomplete and non-processable. SBI’s processing of the incomplete application was an error, and the High Courts overlooked this procedural flaw. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed SBI’s appeal, holding the OTS application fundamentally defective due to non-compliance with mandatory conditions.