Disposed¶13

Kanta Katoch v. the PNB and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Dec 2025CWP/18889/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; Justice Sandeep Sharma (oral judgment); CWP No.18889 of 2025; decided 02.12.2025. Keywords: pension auto-adjustment to loan account; ECS auto-debit instructions; Punjab National Bank; withholding of full pension for loan recovery; mandamus; refund of excess deductions; fixed installment Rs. 4,063; outstanding loan Rs. 1,75,000; petition disposed of. No statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with directions to the respondents to deduct only the fixed installment of Rs. 4,063/- from the petitioner's bank account towards the loan installment, and to refund any amount received over and above the fixed deduction from the month of June onwards; pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ¶13

Kanta Katoch Vs the PNB and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.18889 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.12.2025

¶3

__________________________________________________________ Kanta Katoch …….Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank and Another ….Respondents _________________________________________________________ Coram:_ Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate.

¶4

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶5

Petitioner herein, who is widow of Mr. Rattan Chand, a retired employee of Government of Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved on account of diversion of funds from her account to the loan account. Since entire pension amount to the tune of 25000/- approximately came to be₹ transferred to the loan account of the petitioner, without there being any authority/consent given by the petitioner, she has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs:

¶6

“a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to forthwith release the full pension of the Petitioner from her pension Account No.3371000300148284 without any unlawful withholding, along with lawful interest and declare the action of Respondent No. 2 in withholding and utilising the Petitioner's full pension for recovering overdue as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. b) Further Restraining the Respondent bank from utilising the entire pension amount from her pension Account No. 3371000300148284 for

¶7

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

¶9

recovering the overdue amount of Account No. No.337100NC00021895.

¶10

c) Direct the respondents to accept reasonable monthly deductions (e.g., Rs. 10,000 per month or as deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Court) towards any outstanding loan, if at all legally recoverable.”

¶11

Having regard to the nature of dispute, coupled with the fact that by now it is well-settled that pension amount cannot be automatically adjusted towards loan amount, this Court, instead of calling detailed reply, called upon Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, learned counsel representing respondents-Bank, to have instructions.

¶12

Mr. Dalmia, learned counsel representing respondentsBank, after having obtained necessary instructions from the Bank concerned fairly states that amount deposited in the Bank account of the petitioner on account of pension could not have been adjusted towards loan amount, but same was diverted automatically due to instructions given in the ECS. He submitted that since sum of 1,75,000/- without₹ interest is still payable, computer on its own started deducting entire pension amount. Mr. Dalmia, learned counsel representing respondentsBank, states that afore mistake shall be rectified forthwith and no amount more than fixed installment of 4063/- shall be deducted from the bank₹ account of the petitioner in future. He further states that amount, if any, deducted in excess shall be credited into the bank account of the petitioner.

¶13

In view of aforesaid, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and accordingly the same is disposed of with the

¶14

¶15

direction to respondents to ensure that only sum of 4063/- is deducted₹

¶16

from the bank account of the petitioner towards loan installment and amount, if any, received over and above the fixed deduction from the month of June onwards is refunded to the petitioner.

¶17

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶18

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶19

December 02, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)

Kanta Katoch v. the PNB and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanta Katoch v. the PNB and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virender Singh Vs the State of Hp and Another

Pania Ram Vs the State of Hp and Another

Lobh Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Devender Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Ajay Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Shalu Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others