Rajinder Kumar vs Himachal Pradesh State ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9006 HP

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                          CWP No.514 of 2022 with CWP




                                                                        .
                                          No.8743 of 2022.





                                          Date of decision: 06.07.2023.





    1. CWP No. 514 of 2022.

        Rajinder Kumar                                            .....Petitioner.





                                   Versus
        Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative
        Bank Ltd. and others.
                                                              .....Respondents.


    2. CWP No. 8743 of 2022.

        Lekh Ram                                                    .....Petitioner.



                                   Versus
        Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative
        Bank Ltd. and others.




                                                                  .....Respondents.





    Coram





    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

    Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
    For the Petitioner (s)          :     Mr.  Subhash       Mohan     Snehi,
                                          Advocate, in both the petitions.

    For the Respondents :                  Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate,
                                           for the respondents in CWP No.
                                           514 of 2022 and for respondent

    1
     Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes




                                                       ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2023 20:32:19 :::CIS
                                         2




                                       Nos. 1 to 3 in CWP No. 8743 of
                                       2022.




                                                                .

    Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

Since common questions of law and facts arise in both

these petitions, therefore, the same were taken up together for

consideration and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2.

The petitioner in CWP No. 514 of 2022 is the principal

borrower/loanee, whereas, the petitioner in CWP No. 8743 of 2022

is the guarantor, (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'principal

loanee' and 'guarantor') for the loan of Rs.1,70,000/-, that was

availed by the principal loanee.

3. The principal loanee did not repay the loan as per the

conditions of the loan documents that had been executed at the

time of advancement of loan and consequently his account became

non-performing assets (NPA) and, therefore, notices were issued to

the principal loanee as well as the guarantor, for repaying the loan

amount. Since, both of them, failed to repay the loan amount,

therefore, arbitration proceedings were initiated against them and a

sum of Rs.6,26,108/- as on 29.02.2020, along with interest, were

awarded in favour of the bank vide award dated 20.03.2020. Since,

both the principal loanee and guarantor failed to comply with the

award, therefore, respondent-bank initiated execution proceedings

and as against the outstanding amount in the loan account of

.

Rs.7,29,380/-, the principal loanee had only deposited 3,17,300/-. If

that was not enough, the principal loanee and the guarantor were

again accommodated by the bank by considering the case of the

principal loanee under One Time Settlement (OTS) of the bank

whereby the petitioner was permitted to pay settlement amount of

Rs. 4,30,000/-. r

4. Lastly and more importantly, the principal loanee and

the guarantor were afforded opportunities to settle the amount

under OTS in the Lok Adalat and they still failed to do so. As

against the settlement amount of Rs.4,30,000/- which was required

to be deposited before 11.06.2022 against the outstanding amount

of Rs.7,32,870/- as on 31.03.2021, the principal loanee deposited

only a sum of Rs. 1,28,000/- till 11.06.2022 and instead of paying

the same, the principal loanee has filed CWP No. 514 of 2022

assailing the notice dated 20.11.2021 and practically on no

grounds whatsoever, save and except, the general allegations that

the amount as reflected in the statement of account is excessive.

Similar stand has been taken by the guarantor, but, it has not at all

been explained or for that matter argued how the calculations made

by the respondent-bank are in any manner erroneous or incorrect or

contrary to loan agreement or other documents executed between

.

the parties.

5. Loans by financial institutions are granted from public

money generated at the tax payers expense. Such loan does not

become the property of the person taking the loan, but retains its

character of public money given in a fiduciary capacity as

entrustment by the public. Timely repayment also ensures liquidity to

facilitate loan to another in need, by circulation of the money and

cannot be permitted to be blocked by frivolous litigation by those

who can afford the luxury of the same. (See: Authorized Officer,

State Bank of Travancore and another vs. Mathew K.C. (2018) 3

SCC 85).

6. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, we are

clearly of the view that both the principal loanee and the guarantor,

whose liability admittedly is co-extensive with that of the principal

debtor (See: State Bank of India vs. Messrs. Indexport Registered

and others, AIR 1992 SC 1740 ) have only indulged in frivolous

litigation instead of repaying the loan amount along with interest.

7. Consequently, we find no merit in both these petitions

and the same are accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear

.

their own costs. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed

of.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge 6th July, 2023.

(krt)