Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16352 (HP)

RAJ KISHOR AND OTHERS v. HP STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD AND OTHERS

CWP/12212/2026 · 2026-07-21

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12212 of 2026 Decided on: 21.07.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Raj Kishor and Ors …..Petitioners Versus The State H.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd and Ors. . .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Anamika Kohli, Advocate, vice Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned counsel, accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioners’ grievance is that respondents have not implemented the directions issued in Raj Kishor Vs. State of H.P. & Ors2 in letter and spirit. The said matter was disposed of with following operative directions: - 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No. 5902 of 2026 decided on 23.04.2026 2 “3. The petitioner availed a term loan from the respondent-Bank. Owing to default in repayment of the loan, the account was classified as Non- Performing Asset (NPA). In Case No.1654/2014, the Arbitrator passed an award on 20.07.2016 against the petitioner (the borrower), as also against the guarantors (respondents No.4 & 5). An execution petition was moved by the respondent- Bank for recovery of the loan amount, which is statedly pending before the Collector, Recovery Nahan, District Sirmour. The said officer has issued orders dated 21.01.2026 (Annexure P-4 colly.) for attachment of the salaries of both the guarantors. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents-Bank has extended the operation of One Time Settlement Scheme (OTS Scheme)- 2024 up to 30.09.2026, in terms of office memorandum dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner has applied for settlement of his loan under the aforesaid scheme on 09.04.2026 (Annexure P-5). The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-Bank is not considering his representation. Learned counsel for the respondents-Bank submitted that the respondents are not averse to considering the representation of the petitioner within the four corners of law. 5. Having regard to the above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with directions to respondent No.2/Bank to consider the representation preferred by the petitioner on 09.04.2026 (Annexure P-5) for settlement of his loan account, keeping in view the One Time Settlement Scheme-2024 extended up to 3 30.09.2026 under office memorandum dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure P-3), in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than six weeks. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Till then, coercive action be not taken against the petitioner, including any action consequent upon the orders at Annexure P-4 (colly).” 3. It appears that respondent No.3 has issued an office letter on 01.06.2026 to the petitioners with his opinion that the guarantors of the loan have capacity to repay the loan of the bank. Further, giving some previous inferences of the year 2024, an observation on facts has been made in the aforesaid letter that petitioners have not complied with terms and conditions of some previous assurances extended by them. Be that as it may. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent- bank, on the basis of instructions imparted to him, submits that respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law and as per Raj Kishor2 within a period of three weeks from today. Till then coercive action shall not be taken against the petitioners, in terms of the directions issued in Raj Kishor2. 4 In view of above submissions, the writ petition to stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 21, 2026 Judge R.Atal