Kerala High Court
The Federal Bank Ltd vs Sabna Noufal on 22 May, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
W.A.No.2119 of 2024 1
2025:KER:35321
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2025 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO. 2119 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.12.2024 IN WP(C) NO.44356 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION:
THE FEDERAL BANK LTD,
REP. BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, LCRD/KOZHIKODE
DIVISION, 1ST FLOOR, FEDERAL TOWERS, MAVOOR ROAD,
ARAYADATHUPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016
BY ADVS.
MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
P.V.PARVATHY (P-41)
REENA THOMAS
NIGI GEORGE
ANANTHU V.LAL
SHERIN VARGHESE
BRAHMA R.K.
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION:
SABNA NOUFAL,
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O NOUFAL CHEERAKATH, CHEERAKATH HOUSE,
VELLAPPALI PARAMBA, NADUVATTAM, BEYPORE NORTH
(P.O), KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673015
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.2119 of 2024 2
2025:KER:35321
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The sole respondent in W.P.(C)No.44356 of 2024 has filed
this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the
Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment of the
learned Single Judge dated 12.12.2024 in that writ petition,
which was one filed by the respondent herein-writ petitioner
seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the appellant Bank to
permit her to clear the outstanding amount in the loan account
in question in installments and to return the secured asset. The
further relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding the
appellant Bank to issue the respondent with a complete and
detailed statement of account pertaining to the vehicle loan
account.
2. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the
judgment dated 12.12.2024 of the learned Single Judge.
Paragraphs 3 to 6 of that judgment read thus;
"3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank
submits that the petitioner availed a vehicle loan of
Rs.8,66,000/- from the respondent bank and committed
default in repayment. It is also submitted that
regularisation is not possible. It is submitted that
possession of the vehicle has been taken. It is further
2025:KER:35321
submitted that though proceedings for recovery have been
initiated, as a matter of indulgence, the respondent bank is
willing to accept the repayment of the outstanding amount
in limited instalments. According to the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent, as of now, balance amount,
which is liable to be repaid, is Rs.5,00,718/- (Rupees Five
lakhs seven hundred and eighteen only) and the petitioner
can be permitted to clear the same in limited instalments.
It is further submitted that the petitioner may be directed
to pay some amount in lump-sum on or before
31.12.2024.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondent bank.
5. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the
submissions made as recorded above, I am of the view
that the petitioner can be granted an opportunity to repay
the outstanding amount in four instalments.
6. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondent
bank to accept repayment of the entire outstanding
amount of Rs.5,00,718/- (Rupees Five lakhs seven hundred
and eighteen only) along with accrued interest and bank
charges from the petitioner in the following manner:
(i)Petitioner shall pay a lump-sum amount of
Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh and fifty thousand
only) on or before 13.01.2025;
(ii)The balance outstanding amount of Rs.3,50,718/-
(Rupees Three lakhs fifty thousand seven hundred and
eighteen only) shall be repaid in four equated monthly
instalments along with any accrued interest/costs;
(iii) The first instalment shall be paid on or before
2025:KER:35321
13.02.2025 and the subsequent instalments shall be
paid on or before the 13th day of the succeeding
months;
(iv) On payment of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as directed
above, vehicle of the petitioner (which has been taken
possession of by the bank),shall be released to the
petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner
produces updated and valid insurance policy in respect
of the vehicle before the authorised officer of the
respondent bank;
(v) In the event of default of any one instalment, the
petitioner shall surrender the vehicle to the Authorised
Officer of the respondent bank and the respondent
bank shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with
law ;
(vi) In order to enable the petitioner to repay the
entire amounts, all coercive proceedings shall be kept
in abeyance."
3. Challenging the judgment dated 12.12.2024 of the
learned Single Judge, the appellant is before this Court in this
writ appeal. In the writ appeal the appellant has also raised the
question of maintainability of the writ petition.
4. On 20.12.2024, when this writ appeal came up for
admission, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following
order;
"Heard Mr.Mohan Jacob George, learned counsel appearing
for the Appellant and Mr.Ajith M. Jiji, learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent.
Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the Appellant
2025:KER:35321
is aggrieved by Clause (iii) of the interim order. He submit
that the Respondent ought to have approached the Debt
Recovery Tribunal (DRT).
In the meanwhile, the direction contained in paragraph
No.6(iii) shall stand stayed. It is open to the Respondent to
approach the DRT."
5. On 11.02.2025, the Division Bench extended the
interim order till the next posting date.
6. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration,
the learned counsel for the appellant Bank would submit that the
respondent-writ petitioner has already settled the liability due to
the appellant Bank in respect of vehicle loan pertaining to vehicle
bearing Registration No.KL-11/BN-9900. In such circumstances,
no further orders are necessary in this writ appeal.
Based on the aforesaid submission made by the learned
counsel for the appellant Bank, this writ appeal is closed;
however, leaving open the legal contentions raised by appellant
Bank on the question of maintainability of the writ petition.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
MSA
