2025:UHC:2020-DB 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA 21ST MARCH, 2025 SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 30 OF 2025 Haridwar Education and Research Development Society. …...Appellant. Versus Union of India and others. …….Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Siddharth Sah and Mr. Shantnu Gaur, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Counsel for the Bank : Mr. Siddharth Jain, learned counsel. JUDGMENT : (per Mr. G. Narendar, J.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. 2. The Appeal revolves around a short point. The appellant is a Society running a School; that due to unavoidable and intervening circumstances, the strength of the School had dipped alarmingly and that led to severe financial crunch leading to the appellant defaulting in re-payment or servicing the loan that he had obtained and; that a financial assistance of Rs. 7.55 crores was sanctioned and presently, a sum of Rs. 7.27 crores is due. 3. It is the case of the appellant that in terms of 2025:UHC:2020-DB 2 the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pro Knits vs. Board of Directors of Canara Bank and others reported in (2024) 10 SCC 292, the Bank is required to consider the request of MSMEs, like the appellant, for the purpose of re-structuring of loan; that the same has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge with an erroneous understanding of the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court rejected the writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank would submit that the question of re- structuring of the loan would arise only in respect of the regular accounts and not in respect of defaulters. 5. We have queried learned counsel for the appellant as to whether the appellant would regularize the account as a measure of demonstrating his bona fides, to which learned counsel for the appellant has fairly submitted that the appellant will regularize the Account in the event of the respondent-Bank agreeing to re-structuring of the loan. 6. The submission of the learned counsel is placed on record. 7. In view of the submissions made, we are of the considered opinion that the Appeal could be 2025:UHC:2020-DB 3 disposed of by directing the appellant to regularize the loan account by paying the arrears of the equated monthly installments (EMIs) that have fallen due upto date, including the EMI for the coming month of April, 2025. The total sum shall be calculated and the delay charges and the simple interest also may be calculated and the amount be deposited by 10th April, 2025. In the event, such amount is deposited with the Bank, the Banker shall receive and consider the Application for re- structuring of the loan in accordance with law. 8. The Appeal stands ordered accordingly. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. _____________ ALOK MAHRA, J. Dt: 21st March, 2025 Rathour PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Digitally signed by PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e 3aeb1097d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40C C6179B8E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4 E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2025.03.26 12:42:03 +05'30'