Priyanka vs The Authorized Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 570 Ker

               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

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

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

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