Reju Narayanan vs Axis Bank
2022 Latest Caselaw 384 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 23RD POUSHA, 1943
                         RP NO. 827 OF 2021
  (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26331 OF 2019 DATED 03.10.2019)


REVIEW PETITIONER/WRIT PETITIONER:

            REJU NARAYANAN, AGED 35 YEARS,
            S/O. NARAYANAN V.A., 11/109 KARAKKAMPOKKIL HOUSE,
            KADAMPUZHA, VENGASSERY P.O., PALAKKAD-679 516.

            BY ADV E.V.MOLY



RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

            AXIS BANK, BRANCH, REATAIL ASSET CENTER, 2ND FLOOR,
            GLOBEL TOWER, PARANCHERY, CALICUT-673 016,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER

            SRI.PAULOCHAN ANTONY


     THIS   REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
13.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 827 OF 2021
                            -2-

                           ORDER

This petition, seeking review of the judgment

of this Court dated 03.10.2019 in W.P.(C)No.26331

of 2019, has been filed by the writ petitioner not

because there is any error on the face of it, but

solely since he has not been able to pay off the

amounts as ordered therein.

2. Smt.Moly E.V. - learned counsel for the

petitioner, submitted that on account of the

COVID-19 pandemic scenario, her client has been

further pushed to a financial crisis and

therefore, that he has preferred Annexure A3

application before the respondent Bank, requesting

that the loan be restructured, so that he can pay

it off without default in future. She submitted

that this request has been made because it would

take another 15 years for the term of the loan to

expire and therefore, that if the petitioner is RP NO. 827 OF 2021

given some latitude, he will be able to service it

satisfactorily hereinafter.

3. In response, the learned Standing Counsel

for the respondent Bank - Sri.Paulochan Antony,

submitted that Annexure A3 has not been received

by his client and therefore, that if the

petitioner approaches them with an appropriate

application, the same can be considered in terms

of law, taking note of the financial crisis stated

to be faced by him.

For the afore reasons, I allow this review

petition to the limited extent of leaving liberty

to the petitioner to approach the competent

Authority of the respondent Bank with an apposite

application for restructuring the loan account;

and if this is done within a period of one week

from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment, the same will be considered by the said

Authority, after affording an opportunity of being RP NO. 827 OF 2021

heard to him; thus culminating in an appropriate

order and necessary action thereon, as

expeditiously as is possible, but not later than

one month from the date on which the said

application is received.

Needless to say, until such time as the afore

exercise is completed and the resultant order

communicated to the petitioner, all further

distress action against the property in question

shall stand deferred; however, clarifying that

should the petitioner not make the request as

above or should violate the order to be issued on

it, all consequences as ordered by this Court in

the judgment sought to be reviewed would come into

effect.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv RP NO. 827 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF RP 827/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD 1.11.2019 TO 1.11.2020.

ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD 1.11.2020 TO 21.10.2021.

ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.10.2021 SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENT BANK.