Disposed

Himanshu Verma v. Almora Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Gandhi Chowk Pithoragarh

Uttarakhand HC11 Dec 2020WPMS/382/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition against recovery proceedings initiated based on an arbitral award. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,00,000 and make a representation to the bank within ten days to seek reasonable time for repayment; failure to comply would leave him unprotected.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to approach the bank's Competent Authority with a Rs. 2,00,000 deposit within ten days for consideration of reasonable repayment terms.

Himanshu Verma Vs Almora Urban… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Uttarakhand HC (2020)

¶1

WPMS No. 382 of 2018

¶2

Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

¶3

Mr. Pradeep Chamiyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for respondent no. 1.

¶4

Mr. G.S. Negi, Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

¶6

Petitioner took a commercial loan from Almora Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Branch Pithoragarh. Since petitioner defaulted in repayment of loan, therefore, respondent bank referred the dispute for arbitration under Section 71 of Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. Learned Arbitrator vide judgment/award dated 10.02.2015 permitted the Bank to recover a sum of `20,97,369.54 with interest from the borrower and/or the guarantor.

¶7

Against the said order, petitioner filed Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 2015 before Cooperative Tribunal Uttarakhand and an interim order was granted by learned Tribunal against recovery proceedings, subject to deposit of `1,00,000/-. However, subsequently the said Miscellaneous Case was dismissed by learned Tribunal due to non appearance of the petitioner.

¶8

The respondent Bank issued a recovery certificate, pursuant to which Tehsildar Pithoragarh has issued a recovery certificate. In the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the recovery citation dated 21.11.2015, whereby petitioner has been called upon to deposit a sum of `23,92,816.54 + recovery charges and other expenses.

¶9

This Court vide order dated 14.08.2018 had granted protection against recovery proceedings to the petitioner provided he

¶10

deposits a sum of `3,00,000/- with the Bank within five days.

¶11

Learned counsel for the parties have informed the Court that pursuant to direction of this Court, petitioner deposited a sum of `3,00,000/- with the Bank, but thereafter no further amount has been deposited by him. Admittedly, petitioner has borrowed huge amount from the respondent bank, therefore, he is liable to repay the same. Moreover, there is an arbitral award against the petitioner, which has now attained finality.

¶12

In such view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that petitioner is ready and willing to repay the entire outstanding amount provided some reasonable time is given to him for the purpose.

¶14

Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the bank submits that if petitioner deposits some substantial upfront amount to show his bonafide , then the Competent Authority in the bank shall consider petitioner’s request for grant of reasonable time for repayment of loan amount.

¶15

In such view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority in the respondent bank by making a representation. If such representation is made within ten days from today and an upfront amount of `2,00,000/- is deposited by the petitioner with the Bank within the same period, then the Competent Authority in the bank shall consider petitioner’s request for reasonable time for repayment of the loan and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within three weeks thereafter.

¶16

In case of failure on the part of petitioner to make representation or to deposit `2,00,000/- with the bank within ten days, then petitioner shall not be entitled to protection of this order. It is further made clear that if petitioner makes any default in repayment of the loan, as per the decision to be taken by the Competent Authority, then the respondent bank shall be at liberty to proceed against him, in accordance with law.

¶17

(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.) 11.12.2020

¶18

Aswal

Himanshu Verma v. Almora Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Gandhi Chowk Pithoragarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Verma v. Almora Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Gandhi Chowk Pithoragarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Singh Mahar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sarita Devi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Wazir Ali Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mohd. Yaseen Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ravilal Vs Canara Bank Balbhadrapur

Anandi Devi Vs State of Uttarakhand