Kerala High Court
Indusind Bank Limited vs Jayakumar on 12 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 22ND VAISAKHA, 1945
WA NO. 926 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 14404/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C) NO.14404/2023:
INDUSIND BANK LIMITED,
REGIONAL OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR JAIN TOWERS 2,
VARAPUZHA ROAD, NEAR RAILWAY BRIDGE,
EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY - VICE PRESIDENT (ARD),
SHRI BISIN.K.S., AGED 49 YEARS, S/O SANKARAN,
KAVALLOOR HOUSE, NADAVARAMBA, IRINJALAKKUDA,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 682024
BY ADVS.
VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
ALBIN A. JOSEPH
KURUVILLA MATHEW
VIPIN C. VARGHESE
AMRITHA.J
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER IN IN W.P.(C) NO.14404/2023:
JAYAKUMAR
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVAN,
6/109 8/385, PUTHENVILA VEEDU,
CHOZHIYAKODE, KULATHUPUZHA,
KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691317
BY ADV SHAJIN S.HAMEED
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.926 of 2023
:2:
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,
&
SOPHY THOMAS, JJ.
=========================
W.A.No.926 of 2023
==========================
Dated this the 12th day of May, 2023
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The appellant - IndusInd Bank Ltd., calls into question the
judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C)No.14404/2023, on
the strength of the declarations of law by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in M/s.South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. vs. Naveen
Mathew Philip & Anr. Etc. [SLP (Civil) Nos.22021-22022 of
2022].
2. We do not propose to go into the merits of the assertions of
the appellant, because Sri.Varghese C.Kuriakose, their learned
Standing Counsel, submitted that if the respondent/writ petitioner
is willing to pay Rs.65,000/-, being the overdue amount in his loan
account, within a period of one month, they can be allowed to do
so; but that the directions of the learned Single Judge, permitting
them to pay in instalments is being opposed.
3. Sri.Shajin S.Hameed - learned counsel for the respondent/
writ petitioner, pleaded that the directions of the learned Single
Judge be not disturbed; but conceded that the declarations of law
W.A.No.926 of 2023
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court causes impediment to his client.
He, therefore, accepted the suggestion afore made by Sri.Varghese
C.Kuriakose.
In the afore circumstances, this writ appeal is allowed to the
limited extent of modifying the directions in the impugned
judgment, thus limiting the time for payment of the overdue
amount of Rs.65,000/- in the loan account of the respondent/writ
petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, all applicable interest and charges would also
be liable to be paid on the above said amount, along with the
regular EMI's, which fall due hereinafter.
Axiomatically, on the afore directions being complied with, the
vehicle taken possession of by the appellant will be forthwith
released to the respondent/writ petitioner.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/- SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE
anm
