In Assistant General Manager SBI v. Tanya Energy Enterprises, Tanya Energy had borrowed over ₹8 crore from SBI by mortgaging seven properties but defaulted on repayment. SBI issued demand notices under the SARFAESI Act and initiated recovery proceedings. In 2018, SBI offered a settlement of ₹5 crore under an OTS scheme, which the borrower failed to pay, leading to cancellation. Later, the borrower applied under the OTS 2020 Scheme, but SBI rejected the application. The High Court initially directed SBI to reconsider the application, and a Division Bench upheld that ongoing SARFAESI proceedings did not disqualify borrowers from OTS benefits. The Supreme Court clarified that OTS benefits are discretionary and there is no absolute right to settlement. Under Clause 4 of the OTS 2020 Scheme, an upfront deposit of 5% of the settlement amount was mandatory. The borrower’s failure to comply rendered the application incomplete and non-processable. SBI’s processing of the defective application was an error, and the High Courts overlooked this procedural violation. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed SBI’s appeal and held the OTS application fundamentally defective.