Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 10668
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
BENOY K MATHEW
– Appellant
Versus
THE UNION BANK OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY,AUTHORIZED OFFICER – Respondent
RP 1164 2022
V.H.JASMINE, A.S.P. KURUP
Courts must consider the debtor's repayment capacity when ordering repayment terms.
Headnote:
Review - Repayment - Judgment Order - Review Allowed
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was originally ordered to repay an outstanding amount of Rs.40,12,500/- in 18 monthly instalments. The petitioner argued that the instalments were set too high based on their repayment capacity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the initial order did not consider the petitioner’s ability to repay. After reviewing the case, it recognized an apparent error, allowing the increase in instalments due to the new circumstances.
Issues: Whether the initial judgment regarding the number of instalments was appropriately set considering the petitioner's capacity to repay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it is essential to account for the debtor's repayment ability when determining the terms of a repayment order.
Final Decision: The review petition is allowed, increasing the number of instalments.
ORDER
By judgment dated 07.04.202, petitioner was directed to repay the entire outstanding amount of Rs.40,12,500/- due to the respondent bank in 18 equated monthly instalments commencing from 07.05.2022. The present review petition has been preferred seeking to increase the number of instalments already ordered.
2. According to the petitioner, the instalments were fixed by this Court without considering the ability of the petitioner to repay. It is further pointed out that as per the judgment, Rs.2,22,917/- has to be paid towards the instalments, per month, while the petitioner is not able to garner more than Rs.75,000/- per month for repayment. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that petitioner is bonafide willing to clear the entire liability if a breathing time is granted by increasing the number of instalments.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents, upon instructions submitted that after deducting the amounts paid by the petitioner, Rs.26,46,438/- remains due and that considering the circumstances including the payments already made by the petitioner, respondents are willing to agree for an increase in the number of instalments.
4. In view of the circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on account of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, I am satisfied that the number of instalments granted to the petitioner was fixed without taking into reckoning the various factors that should have been weighed with the court. Therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the record and the judgment is required to be reviewed.
Accordingly the judgment dated 07.04.2022 in W.P.(C)
No.13032/2022 is recalled.
The review petition is allowed as above.
