[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 23 February, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2026:UHC:1162
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.299 of 2026
23rd February, 2026
Harish Singh Soragi ............Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ............Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil K. Dabral, Additional C.S.C. with Mr. Suyash Pant, S.C.
for the State.
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.
Monika Pant, Advocate for respondent no.3, through video
conferencing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This writ petition has been filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner
claims himself to be a Guarantor of a loan issued to
respondent no.4-M/s Shri Balaji Trading Company by
respondent no.3-Union Bank of India. Respondent no.4-
M/s Shri Balaji Trading Company failed to repay the loan
which resulted into recovery proceedings. In the said
proceedings ultimately secured assets owned by the
petitioner were put to e-auction and the said secured
assets were purchased by respondent no.10 in the said
auction. While challenging the e-auction consequent sale
on various grounds, the petitioner has come up with a
pleading that he is willing to clear all the liabilities against
the borrower within a stipulated period.
2. Impressed by the said contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, that petitioner wants to settle the
dispute, this Court therefore asked the counsel for
respondent no.3-Union Bank of India to seek instructions
in the matter only on this aspect as to whether the
2026:UHC:1162
respondent-Bank accepts such proposal or not.
3. An interim order has been granted by this Court
on 17.02.2026 whereby it was directed that the sale which
has been made in favour of respondent no.10 shall not be
confirmed.
4. Today Mr. Praveen Kumar Gupta, Branch
Manager, Asset Recovery Branch, Dehradun of respondent
no.3-Union Bank of India is present before this Court and
on instructions he submits that the respondent no.3-Union
Bank of India is ready to consider proposal for clearing the
liability of the petitioner.
5. Learned Senior Advocate for respondent no.3
informed this Court that the total liability towards the
petitioner is ₹72,50,000/- upto 31st January, 2026;
however, after the order passed by the Debts Recovery
Tribunal, Dehradun, vide order dated 06.01.2026 the
liability reduced to ₹60,50,000/- approximately. The
respondent no.3-Union Bank of India can settle the dispute
with the petitioner who is Guarantor of the loan,
sympathetically.
6. It is further informed by learned Senior Advocate
for respondent no.3 that the sale certificate dated
04.02.2026 has not been registered in view of the interim
order passed by this Court on 17.02.2026.
7. On a question being put to Branch Manager that
as to whether he is in a position to settle the dispute as
One Time Settlement, he replied that One Time Settlement
is done by a Committee of the Bank and, therefore, he is
not in a position to settle it in that manner.
8. Having considered the rival submission of the
2026:UHC:1162
learned counsel for the parties and having considered the
facts of the case and especially the fact that the petitioner
is a Guarantor, this Court gives an opportunity to the
petitioner to move a fresh application for One Time
Settlement before the said Committee of the Bank within a
period of 15 days from today.
9. If such an application is moved by the petitioner
before the said Committee, the same shall be considered
sympathetically so that the petitioner would not be
deprived of his property. It is made clear that all stake-
holders be heard while deciding the application by the
O.T.S. Committee.
10. In order to show his bona fide, the petitioner
shall deposit a sum of ₹20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs Rupees)
within ten days from today in the account of respondent
no.3-Union Bank of India.
11. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner the
natural consequence will ensue.
12. As an abundant precaution, it is provided that
the sale made in favour of respondent-Bank shall not be
confirmed till the proceedings of One Time Settlement have
come to an end.
13. Accordingly writ petition stands disposed of in
the aforesaid terms.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
23.02.2026
SK
