( 2026:HHC:9104 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA Nos.112 & 113 of 2026 Date of Decision:- 23.03.2026 The Kangra Central Co-Operative ....Appellants Bank Limited and another Versus Vishudha Educational Society ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The appellant-Bank is in appeals against the order dated 11.12.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP Nos.17931 and 17932 of 2025, titled Vishudha Educational Society Vs. The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another. 2. The learned Single Judge while entertaining the writ petition(s) had directed the writ petitioner(s) as such to deposit One Time Settlement Scheme (OTSS) amount beyond a period 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of two months which was cut-off date fixed by the appellants- Bank. The bank interest on account of delay was paid to the Bank. On having received the amount as such, the Bank has now filed the appeals on the technical ground that the cut-off date had expired on 16.06.2025 and had been extended upto 09.09.2025 and by the said date, the loanee as such had not deposited the settled amount as per the One Time Settlement Scheme (OTSS) and therefore the learned Single Judge has erred as such in extending the same by virtue of the interim order passed initially. 3. We have gone through the original writ petition(s). The specific reason for delay as such was that the petitioner(s) being a non-profitable Educational Society could not liquidate the liabilities of the respondent-Bank within the time granted and therefore, there was a delay as such in the deposit of the amount which had to be settled under the One Time Settlement Scheme (OTSS). 4. Apparently, they had also filed the representation dated 01.11.2025 giving an example that in one of the cases the bank has extended the repayment time of the settled amount. The Bank took no action as such on the said representation leading to the filing of the writ petitions immediately, thereafter and came before the Court on 19.11.2025, whereby the 3 directions were issued to deposit the entire amount and the needful having been done, the learned Single Judge had asked for the amount of the interest which was due as on 04.12.2025. 5. Counsel for the respondent-Bank had instructed on the very next day, the interest element also be deposited. Rather the interest element has apparently been deposited twice of the amount and the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition directed that the excess interest amount which has been deposited by the petitioners with the present appellant-bank, be refunded to them. 6. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present appeals and there is no reason as such to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge more so, when the Bank itself did not act upon the representation. 7. It is also to be noticed that the apprehension that it would be a precedent as such has also been looked after by the learned Single Judge saying that the case would not be treated as a precedent. Needless to say that the petitioner had approached the Bank at the initial stage itself as noticed in November, 2025 and therefore any such party which will now 4 approach would also not be entitled for the same benefits as apparently more than another five months have gone back. 8. In such circumstances, the apprehesion of the Bank that it would create precedent is also not found tenable. Resultantly, we dismiss the present appeals, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Judge 23rd March, 2026 (Munish Thakur)