A person who did not deposit the amount given in the coordinate bench’s order is not entitled to more indulgence from this court: 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: 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 &amp; 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.