Rajna M.K vs Indusind Bank Limited
2021 Latest Caselaw 16693 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
 WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 16383 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:

     1       RAJNA M.K
             AGED 39 YEARS
             D/O PAKKAR, MAVULLAKANDI HOUSE,
             WEST KAITHAPOYIL, PUTHUPPADI,KOZHIKODE-673586.

     2       RAFEEQUE.M.K,
             AGED 30 YEARS
             S/O PAKKAR, MAVULLAKANDI HOUSE, WEST KAITHAPOYIL,
             PUTHUPPADI,
             KOZHIKODE-673586.

             BY ADV SUNNY MATHEW



RESPONDENTS:

     1       INDUSIND BANK LIMITED
             REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY,
             MR.T.S.RAJAGOPAL, DEPUTY-MANAGER(LEGAL),AND HAVING
             ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NEW NO.34, OLD NOS. 115 &
             116, G.N.CHETTY ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI-600017.

     2       THE STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

             BY ADV G.HARIHARAN




             SRI. G.HARIHARAN SC




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   11.08.2021,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 16383 OF 2021
                                    2

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court

asserting that the first among them is the

registered owner of a car, bearing Registration

No.KL-57U-1345; and that the second among them is

a guarantor to a loan facility availed of by the

former to purchase the same. The petitioners

concede that, on account of certain financial

crisis faced by them, they were unable to pay the

Equated Monthly Instalments (EMI) as per the loan

sanction and that the 1st respondent Bank has now

repossessed the vehicle. They thus pray that the

Bank be directed to release the vehicle back to

them on such conditions as this Court may impose.

2. The afore submissions made on behalf of the

petitioners by their learned counsel Shri.Sunny

Mathew, were answered by the learned Standing

Counsel for the 1st respondent-Shri.G.Hariharan,

saying that the overdue in the loan account, as on

12.07.2021, is Rs.2,21,359/-; and added that if WP(C) NO. 16383 OF 2021

the petitioners are willing to pay this amount in

not more than four instalments, the Bank can

release the vehicle provided, they pay the current

instalments also in time.

3. The afore suggestion of Shri.G.Hariharan

was accepted by Shri.Sunny Mathew and he prayed

that this writ petition be so ordered.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ

petition, directing the petitioners to pay the

overdue amount of R.2,21,359/-, as on 12.07.2021,

along with all applicable charges and interest in

four equal monthly instalments commencing from

September, 2021, on condition that they will pay

the same on the date on which the regular EMIs

fall due along with them.

Needless to say, the petitioners will also pay

the regular EMIs without break; and should they

default in payment of two instalments as ordered

above, they will surrender the vehicle before the

1st respondent voluntarily and I record that this WP(C) NO. 16383 OF 2021

has been expressly agreed upon by their learned

counsel Shri.Sunny Mathew.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/11.8 WP(C) NO. 16383 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16383/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE SOLE ARBITRATOR.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DATED 05.05.2021.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2021,PASSED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE,AS M.C 28/2021.