Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2314/2026 of RADHEY SHYAM Vs BANK OF INDIA on 10 August 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2314/2026 Radhey Shyam --Petitioner Versus Bank Of India --Respondent Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Pankaj Miglani,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
UKHC010134652026
2026:UHC:7030 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPMS/2314/2026
Radhey Shyam --Petitioner Versus Bank Of India --Respondent
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner through video conferencing. Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, Advocate for the Bank.
2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief:
“I Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to disclose the updated entire amount of dies till date and accept the One-Time Proposal of the petitioners and release the property in his favor soon after the full and final settlement is done by the petitioners.”
3. Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, Advocate appearing for the Bank of India was given time to get instructions. On instructions, he submits that Mr. Ghanshyam Singh and Mrs. Shrimat Devi (Brother and sister-in-law of the petitioner) had taken three different loans, which could not be repaid by them, UKHC010134652026
2026:UHC:7030 therefore recovery proceedings under Section 13 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 were initiated against them.
4. Petitioner contends that he is ready and willing to enter into One Time Settlement with the bank. Learned counsel for the bank, however, submits that since petitioner is neither the borrower nor guarantor in respect of the loan taken by Ghanshyam Singh and Shremati Devi, therefore, prayer of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
5. This Court do not find any scope for interference with the matter.
6. Merely because petitioner is residing in that property will not create any right in his favour to enter into One Time Settlement with the Bank. It is only the borrower or the guarantor who can make such a proposal.
7. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 10.08.2026 Mahinder