Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/18612/2026 on 15 October 2026
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.18612 of 2026
Date of Decision: 15.10.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Budhi Singh Chauhan
……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioner: Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State.
Mr. Narender Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.3 & 4. ___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Through instant petition, direction has been sought to the respondent-bank to extend the time for depositing 25% of the amount settled under OTS scheme (Annexure P-1).
2. As per pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, loan of the petitioner came to be settled for a sum of Rs. 49,71,868/- under One-Time Settlement Scheme. As per agreed terms, petitioner was under an obligation to pay 25% of the amount settled under OTS on or before 30.09.2026 and thereafter, remaining amount was to be paid on or before 31.12.2026. It is stated in the application that due to financial constraints, petitioner has not been able to High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:01:55 :::CIS
2 deposit 25% amount on or before 30.09.2026, but he can deposit the same on or before 30.11.2026.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents-bank, on instructions, states that though as per agreed terms, petitioner was under an obligation to pay 25% of the agreed amount on or before 30.09.2026, but in case he undertakes to make the complete payment on or before 31.12.2026, time may be extended till 30.11.2026, enabling the petitioner to deposit 25% of the amount. However, in case the aforesaid amount is not deposited by the aforesaid date, respondent-bank would be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
4. In view of aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned counsel for the respondents-bank, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with a direction to the petitioner to deposit 25% of the amount settled under One-Time Settlement Scheme on or before 30.11.2026 and thereafter deposit entire remaining amount settled under One-Time Settlement Scheme on or before 31.12.2026. However, it is made clear that in case the 25% amount, agreed to be deposited by 30.11.2026, is not deposited, respondents-bank shall be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
October 15, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (sunil)
Judge
High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:01:55 :::CIS