Uttarakhand High Court Grants One Year Installment Plan for Loan Repayment Due to Petitioner’s Disability, Holds Execution of Decree in Abeyance Pending Compliance

Court’s Decision:
The Uttarakhand High Court directed the petitioner to repay the outstanding amount of Rs. 16,92,356 in four equal installments over a period of one year. The court allowed the petitioner to settle the loan in installments, considering the petitioner’s 40% disability. If the petitioner defaults on any installment, the respondent bank will have the right to execute the decree. Pending the fulfillment of this order, the execution proceedings are kept in abeyance.

Facts:
A money decree was passed against the petitioner in a suit filed by the respondent bank for the recovery of Rs. 5,73,680, along with interest, due to the non-repayment of a Cash Credit Limit (CCL) loan. The bank initiated execution proceedings after the judgment in the original suit. The petitioner expressed his willingness to repay the amount but requested the court to allow him to repay the loan in installments due to his 40% disability.

Issues:

• Whether the petitioner could be granted the relief of installment-based repayment of the loan considering his disability.
• Whether the execution proceedings could be stayed while the petitioner repaid the loan in installments.

Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner argued that he was unable to repay the loan due to financial difficulties and his physical condition, being 40% disabled. He requested that the court allow him to repay the loan in four equal installments over a year.

Respondent’s Arguments:
The counsel for the respondent bank informed the court that the bank was willing to accept the petitioner’s proposal to repay the loan in installments, subject to the court’s direction.

Analysis of the Law:
The court considered the petitioner’s financial and physical condition and the fact that the respondent bank was willing to accept the repayment in installments. The principle of balancing the enforcement of a decree with providing reasonable relief to the debtor was applied.

Precedent Analysis:
No specific precedents were cited in this case, but the court’s reasoning aligned with established principles of equity, particularly in considering factors like disability and financial hardship when structuring the enforcement of a money decree.

Court’s Reasoning:
The court reasoned that, given the petitioner’s 40% disability and the respondent bank’s willingness to accept an installment-based repayment, it would be equitable to allow the petitioner to repay the loan in installments. The court ensured that the decree could still be executed if the petitioner defaulted on the installment plan.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petitioner to repay the amount due in four installments within a year. The execution of the decree would remain in abeyance, provided the petitioner adhered to the installment schedule. In case of default, the respondent bank would be entitled to proceed with the execution of the decree.

Implications:
This judgment reflects the court’s willingness to provide flexible repayment options in cases where the debtor faces significant personal and financial challenges, such as disability. It also underscores the importance of balancing the enforcement of legal obligations with equitable relief for individuals in hardship.

Also Read – High Court of Jammu and Kashmir Dismisses Petition Challenging Withdrawal of Budgetary Support Scheme; Holds Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation Not Applicable