Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

May vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 26 UK

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 26 UK
Judgement Date : 1 May, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

May vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 1 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
                                                    2025:UHC:3363-DB



HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
               Special Appeal No. 891 of 2017
                           01 May, 2025
      JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
                                AND
     JUSTICE SHRI VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA

Santokh Singh                                           --Appellant
                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Others                       --Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Shivam Singh Porgail, proxy counsel for Mr. Aamir Malik,
learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. D. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. B. M. Pingal, learned counsel for the respondent no.4/Bank.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT:

(per Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

This intra-court appeal is directed against

judgment and order dated 06.09.2017 passed by

the Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2430

(M/S) of 2011 'Santokh Singh vs. State of

Uttarakhand & Others'.

2. By the said judgment, writ petition filed

by the petitioner, was disposed of with liberty to

make representation before the respondent-Bank

seeking benefits under the Waiver Scheme framed

by Central Government in the year 2008. Operative

2025:UHC:3363-DB portion of the impugned judgment is reproduced

below:-

"Petitioner had taken agricultural loan. However, due to successive failures of crop, he could not repay the same. Petitioner has also been given the benefit under the Waiver Scheme framed by the Central Government in the year 2008.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed. The petitioner is permitted to make a representation before the respondent-Bank seeking benefits under the aforesaid scheme within a period of one week. The respondent-Bank is directed to decide the same within a period of three weeks thereafter.

Till then, no recovery shall be made from the petitioner."

3. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned

judgment, writ petitioner has filed this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for appellant contended

that appellant had repaid the entire loan on

03.12.2004 and now nothing remains to be paid by

him. He relied upon a document enclosed as

Annexure no.4 to writ petition, which is a 'No

Objection Certificate' issued by Branch Manager,

Uttarakhand State Co-Operative Bank Limited,

Kashipur Branch.

2025:UHC:3363-DB

5. This Court vide order dated 25.04.2025

directed the Managing Director of the concerned

Bank to file short counter affidavit regarding

averments made in Paragraph no.6 of the writ

petition and also regarding the document, which is

enclosed as Annexure no. 4 to the writ petition.

The Managing Director has filed a short counter

affidavit on 29.04.2025, wherein it is mentioned in

Paragraph no. 3 that document enclosed as

Annexure no. 4 to writ petition, is forged and

fabricated document. It is further mentioned that

petitioner had deposited a sum of `1,00,000/-

(One Lac Rupees) on 23.02.2005 in his loan

account maintained with Kashipur Branch of the

Bank.

6. Mr. B. M. Pingal, learned counsel

appearing for Bank submits that the fact that

appellant had deposited `1,00,000/- in his loan

account in 2005, is sufficient to belie the statement

made on behalf of the appellant that he had repaid

the loan on 03.12.2004. No reply affidavit to the

short counter affidavit has been filed by the

appellant, thus, the statement made by Managing

2025:UHC:3363-DB Director of the Bank in his affidavit, cannot be

doubted.

7. We find force in the submission made by

learned counsel for the respondent no.4/Bank that

appellant has played fraud upon the Court and

abused judicial process for obtaining wrongful

benefit. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with cost

of `25,000/- to be deposited by appellant in the

Registry, within two months from today. If cost is

not deposited by appellant within stipulated time,

same shall be recovered through District

Magistrate/Collector, Udham Singh Nagar, as

arrears of loan.

8. Copy of this order be sent to the District

Magistrate/Collector, Udham Singh Nagar for

compliance.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 01.05.2025 01.05.2025 SS/Akash

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter