SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1763

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, ROMESH VERMA, JJ.
H.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd. through its Managing Director – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. and Others – Respondents
CWP No. 3924 of 2019
Decided On : 08-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sunil Mohan Goel, Abhinav Mohan Goel
For the Respondents: Ramakant Sharma, Ajay Kumar, Rohit

Where borrowers admit loan liability in arbitration proceedings under Co-operative Societies Act, no issues need framing nor evidence recording; appellate remand solely on procedural grounds without factual denial is liable to be set aside.

Headnote:(A) H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 - Sections 72 and 73 - SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Sections 13(2) and 17 - Arbitration for recovery of defaulted loans advanced as working capital and term loan - Borrowers repeatedly admitted availing loans and liability to repay during proceedings, seeking time for settlement - No framing of issues required under Order XIV CPC where no material propositions denied (Paras 34, 35, 56); principles of natural justice not violated despite rejection of belated applications for legal assistance and issue framing at argument stage (Paras 43-46). Remand by appellate authority set aside as erroneous and contrary to admissions, directed to decide appeals on merits within one month (Paras 57, 58).

(B) Code of Civil Procedure - Order XII Rule 6 and Order XIV - Judgment on admissions - Where claim admitted unequivocally, court empowered to decree without trial; no issues to frame on undisputed facts, enabling speedy recovery especially of public money (Paras 38, 39).

(C) H.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1971 - Rules 91, 145, 148 - Belated applications for legal representation and evidence after admissions not to prolong proceedings; borrowers' conduct in delaying repayment over 20 years deprecated (Paras 30, 46).

Facts of the case:
Petitioner-bank advanced working capital limit and term loan for hotel renovation in 2004-2005. Borrowers defaulted, account became NPA. SARFAESI proceedings initiated, later withdrawn; arbitration under Co-operative Societies Act resulted in awards in bank's favor. Appellate authority remanded for fresh disposal citing lack of issue framing and opportunity to lead evidence. Bank challenged remand via writ petition.

Findings of Court:
Remand order quashed; appellate authority to expeditiously decide appeals on merits. Borrowers directed to appear on specified date; costs imposed on respondents.

Issues: Whether remand justified for non-framing of issues and denial of evidence opportunity; applicability of CPC provisions to arbitration; impact of admissions on procedural requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: Admissions by borrowers obviate need for issues or evidence under Order XIV CPC; remand unsustainable absent factual dispute, as it enables undue delay in public money recovery. Principles from Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. applied for judgment on admissions.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. loan sanctions and repayment terms stipulated. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. sarfaesi proceedings quashed by drt. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. arbitration awards remanded for fresh disposal. (Para 12 , 13)
4. parties argue remand validity on procedure. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 31)
5. borrowers admit liability, seek repeated delays. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. admissions obviate framing of issues. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
7. prolonged litigation shows delay tactics. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
8. ots offered but not complied with. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
9. remand erroneous absent factual disputes. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
10. remand quashed; expeditious merits decision. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)

JUDGMENT :

ROMESH VERMA, J.

1. The present writ petition arises out of the order dated 12.07.2019, passed by the Additional Registrar (Administration) Co-operative Societies H.P., whereby, Appeal Nos. 329, 330 and 331 of 2016 have been disposed off by setting-aside the award passed by the Arbitrator (Bank) and case was sent back to him for fresh disposal of the dispute under Section 72 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968. It was ordered that Arbitrator shall decide the case within a period of four months from the date of the appearance of the parties.

2. The facts which arise in the case are that the present petitioner advanced working capital (CC) limit of Rs. 10.00 lakhs to M/S Bhagra Resorts Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director Smt. Prabha Bhagra on 16.02.2004. Further, on 28.06.2005, the private respondents availed term loan of Rs. 3.00 crores vide sanction letter dated 28.06.2005 for completion/ renovation of the Hotel/Motel under the scheme of the Bank. The said term loan of Rs.3.00 crores was sanctioned in favour of M/S Bhagra Resorts Pvt. Ltd., (respondent No.5). The present petitioner sanctioned the term loan of Rs. 3.00 crores on 28.06.2005 at the rate of 10.90% interest for a period of seven years including moratorium period of one year. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of the sanction of capital (CC) limit of Rs. 10.00 Lakhs as Annexure P-1 and sanction of term loan of Rs. 3.00 crores in favour of respondent No.5, as Annexure P-2.

3. It has been stipulated in the sanction letter, Annexure P-2 that the borrower shall repay the term loan within a maximum period of seven years including moratorium period of one year. It has further been stipulated in the sanction letter that during the moratorium period, the borrower shall repay the interest accrued on monthly basis with the stipulation that the loan shall be repaid in seventy two equated monthly installments (EMI) of Rs. 5.7 lakhs consisting of principal and interest. It has also been incorporated in the sanction letter that the borrower shall pay interest @ 10.90 % per annum on term loan. The interest shall be compounded on monthly rests, however, the rate of interest and periodicity of compounding of interest shall be subject to change from time to time without notice. The sanction letter stipulates that the Bank shall charge the penal interest @ 2% per annum over the normal interest.

4. The private respondents failed to repay the said loan amount, as a result of which, the loans/advances of the private respondents became non-performing assets in terms of the Reserve Bank of India Guidelines w.e.f. 30.09. 2006. Under such circumstances, the present petitioner issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SARFAESI Act’) to respondent No.5 for the payment of outstanding amount of Rs. 3,90,76,986.00/- crores.

5. Pursuant to the issuance of the notice, the District Magistrate, Shimla vide its order dated 14.01.2010 passed an order and the possession of the premises was taken on 03.05.2010, however, it is stated that private responden














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top