A person who took a loan, is bound to repay the principal amount as well as the amount of accrued interest: High Court of Uttarakhand.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ON THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2021 HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Writ PetitionNo. 13721 Bhupal Ram By Mr. Ganesh Kandpal Advocate) District Magistrate Collector Bageshwar others By Mr. Rakesh Kunwar learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. M.S. Rawat Advocate for the Bank) By means of this writ petition petitioner has sought following reliefs: Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari and call for the record of the case and quash the impugned Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) issued by respondent no. 2. ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the respondent to permit the petitioner to in the deposit the due installment. of mandamus directing loan amount Mr. Ganesh Kandpal learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready and willing to repay the entire outstanding loan amount to the Bank. However he needs some time for the purpose. 2 Mr. M.S. Rawat learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that petitioner took a loan of ₹4.00 lakh in the year 2013 for commercial purpose. He further submits that due to persistent default by the petitioner Bank was constrained to proceed for recovery of the outstanding loan amount. He further submits that recovery citation impugned in the writ petition does not indicate the correct amount as the said recovery citation was issued pursuant to the recovery certificate issued by the Bank in the year Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition is an order dated 09.11.2016 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in WPMS No. 2997 of 2016. Operative portion of the said judgment is reproduced below: “In view of the above writ petition stands disposed with the direction that if the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.40 000 i.e. on or before 25.11.2016 with the bank the remaining amount shall be recovered from the petitioner in twenty four equal monthly installments the petitioner shall liable to pay the installment on or before 25th of every month spread over for a period of twenty four months. further directed installment shall also carry the cumulative interest. It is however made clear that in the event of default of any single payment of installment the bank shall be at liberty to initiate fresh process of recovery against the Mr. M.S. Rawat learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that despite the indulgence given by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.11.2016 petitioner has not complied with the order inasmuch as he had not deposited the amount as indicated in the order of this Court. Petitioner deposited only a small amount and 3 thereafter he never turned up to deposit the remaining amount. Thus according to him petitioner is not entitled to any relief at this stage. This Court 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. Admittedly petitioner loan therefore he is bound to repay the principal amount as well as the amount of accrued interest. Thus any interference with the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the bank would be dismissed. Accordingly writ petition fails and is hereby MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI J.) 

Summary: Where a person has taken a loan, he is bound to repay the principal amount and the accrued interest. And where such a person is ordered by the court to repay the same, and if such person does not comply to it, then he does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. A single Judge bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, in the matter of Bhupal Ram Vs. District Magistrate/Collector, Bageshwar and Others. (Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1378 of 2021) dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari and call for the record of the case and quash the impugned Recovery notice issued by respondent no. 2. Also, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to deposit the due loan amount in the installment. In the present case, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the entire outstanding loan amount to the Bank. However, he would need some time for the purpose.  However, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner took a loan of ₹4.00 lakh in the year 2013 for commercial purposes. Due to consistent default, the respondents had to proceed with the recovery of the outstanding loan amount. The council for the respondent also stated that the petitioner had not complied with the order as he had not deposited the amount as indicated in the order of this Court. The petitioner had only deposited a small amount and he never turned up to deposit the rest of the amount. The court observed- “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”.  Thereby the writ petition failed and was dismissed.