AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J
There are few admitted facts in the present Writ Petition, which are germane to the proceedings of the present Writ Petition. It is admitted by the petitioner that the petitioner is the borrower of the loan, as extended to him by respondent No.1 on 20th February, 2014, extending him a financial assistance of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, which was in the shape of personal loan. As per the terms of the loan agreement, the same was payable in 36 equal monthly installments within a span of period of three years. Admittedly, the loan agreement contained an arbitration clause and it is the case of the petitioner that though despite of the fact that he had partly discharged his loan liability and has remitted a sum of an amount of Rs.1,48,514/-till 12th August, 2016, but still, the respondents had initiated an arbitration proceedings by way of Case No. 256 of 2016, M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited Vs. Mr. Rohit Jaiswal and others.
On a reference being made to Arbitrator on 2nd November, 2016, for recovering the amount which at that stage was shown allegedly due of Rs.5,02,546/-, the Arbitrator has rendered an award on 20th February, 2017, in favour of respondent No.1 directing the recovery of an amount of Rs.5,02,546/-. It is not in dispute that the award as rendered by the Arbitrator has attained its finality and the same has not been questioned by the petitioner before the superior court or before any forum available to him under the laws of Arbitration.
The award was put to execution by way of Arbitration Execution Case No. 59 of 2017, M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited Vs. Rohit Jaiswal and another. In pursuance to the filing of the execution application, the Executing Court had, in fact, passed an order on 18th December, 2017, directing the debtor/petitioner to pay the award within a month, while considering the provisions under Order 21 of C.P.C., which had been made applicable in the execution proceedings of the Award under Arbitration Act, 1996. Having failed to do so, the District Judge, Nainital, had issued a recovery citation for recovering an amount of Rs.3,02,546/- because partially sum of Rs.2 lacs was deposited by the petitioner before the Executing Court.
Considering the fact that admittedly, the award has been rendered in favour of respondent No.1, and the petitioner owes the loan liability to be discharged by him, which is being sought to be enforced through an execution proceeding, which is permissible in accordance with law, hence, as such, this Court is not interfering in the writ petition and the petitioner is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount as referred in the recovery citation, i.e. a sum of Rs.3,02,546/-, which is an amount arrived at after making the deduction of the amount paid by him to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-before the Executing Court.
Owing to the circumstances referred above, since the recovery citation since is as a consequence of an order passed by the District Judge, Nainital in the execution case, the judgment debtor / petitioner was bound to honour the award, which he has not challenged and the liability to pay the amount has already been settled against him.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the financial condition of the petitioner is in a very precarious financial condition and he would not be able to meet the entire liability sought to be recovered by the recovery citation at one go. Hence, in view of the relief 3, which is quoted hereunder :-
"iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix easy installments for the actual loan amount which has to be paid by the petitioner."
the direction may be issued to the District Judge to direct respondent No. 1 to recover the amount as directed therein in easy installments. To this argument, there is no objection extended by the respondents' counsel.
Considering the fact that the petitioner admits the liability on account of non challenge of the award dated 20.02.2017, the respondent No. 1 is directed to accept the amounts in four quarterly equal installments; the first being payable after ten days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and, thereafter, the remaining installments on an equal interval of three months each. In an event of default in payment of any of the installments as directed above, it will be open for the respondent No. 1 to execute the recovery citation impugned in the present writ petition.
Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.