A person who has not made any progress in complying with an order passed by the coordinate bench of a High Court, cannot expect much more indulgence or relief from the Court in the same case. This was held in the judgement passed by a single member bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand consisting of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari in the case of Bhupal Ram v District Magistrate, Bageshwar & others [Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1378 of 2021] on the 20th of July 2021.
The petitioner, Bhupal Ram took a loan of Rs. 4,00,000 from the bank in the year 2013 for commercial purposes. When the petitioner expressed his inability to meet some of the payments, the bank began proceedings for recovery of the outstanding loan amount. A recovery notice was issued against the petitioner on 29th June 2021 and the present petition has been filed asking the court to quash this recovery notice. Additionally the petitioner has also sought for the issue of a writ directing the respondent to allow him to deposit the due loan amount in instalments. He submitted that he was ready and willing to repay the entire outstanding amount to the bank, however needed some more time to arrange for the funds to do the same. The counsel appearing for the bank pointed out that the recovery citation impugned in the writ petition did not indicate the correct amount as it was issued pursuant to the recovery certificate that had been issued by the bank in 2016.
As per the order passed on 9th November 2016 by the coordinate bench of this Court in WPMS No. 2997 of 2016, the petitioner was instructed to deposit an amount of Rs. 40,000 on or before 25th November 2016 with the bank and the remaining amount in twenty four equal monthly instalments. It was also added in this order that in the event of default of any of the instalments, the bank would be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner. The counsel appearing for the bank submitted that despite the lenient order passed by the coordinate bench of the High Court, the petitioner has not even deposited the initial amount indicated in the order. Thus bank’s counsel concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief at this point.
Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari stated that “Admittedly, petitioner took a loan, therefore, he is bound to repay the principal amount as well as the amount of accrued interest” and it was concluded that “This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the Bank. Since petitioner has not deposited the amount in terms of the order passed by coordinate Bench of this Court, therefore, he does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court”.