Priyanka vs The Authorized Officer

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.26467 OF 2020(G)


PETITIONER:

               PRIYANKA
               AGED 38 YEARS
               W/O. SUJITH, KONJATH, IRIMBILIYAM P.O,
               MALAPPURAM - 679572.

               BY ADV. SRI.E.A.BIJUMON

RESPONDENTS:

               THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
               AXIS BANK LTD, RETAIL ASSET CENTRE, 3RD FLOOR,
               CHICAGO PLAZA, KOCHI - 682035.




               SRI. P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY - SC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.26467 OF 2020             2

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner submits that her husband had taken certain vehicle loans from the respondent Bank and that he was regular in his payment until August 2020, when, on account of the COVID - 19 pandemic disruptions, he defaulted payment of one or two EMIs. She says that the respondent, through their agents, came to her house and threatened to take possession of the vehicle and that, therefore, she has been constrained to approach this Court, seeking that the Bank be directed to allow her husband to pay off the total liability in instalments, after granting him all available concessions. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the Bank be directed to do so.

2. In response to the afore submissions of Shri.E.A.Bijumon, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank - Shri.P.Paulochan Antony, submitted that the account has not been yet classified as a 'Non Performing Asset' and that WP(C).No.26467 OF 2020 3 no coercive steps - either under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity) or other applicable statutes - have been initiated against the petitioner. He then submitted that if the petitioner and her husband are so inclined, they are at liberty to approach the Bank and seek a One Time Settlement of the account or to seek eligible concessions, which the Bank will certainly consider, as long as they continue to pay the EMIs in the account without default.

3. On hearing Shri.P.Paulochan Antony as afore, Shri.E.A.Bijumon prayed that this writ petition be ordered granting his client the afore suggested liberty.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition, recording the submissions of Shri.P.Paulochan Antony as afore and leaving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Bank WP(C).No.26467 OF 2020 4 for either settling the account under the One Time Settlement or for other concessions as her husband may be eligible; in which event, its competent Authority will consider the same as per law and communicate the resultant order to her and to her husband without any delay.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/7.1.21 WP(C).No.26467 OF 2020 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.KL-55-T-7272. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL


MC

                     (TRUE COPY)                PA TO JUDGE