IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 3484 of 2011(I) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- CHIRUTHA K.AKHILA, 7/297, PARAMBUVATHUKAL, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE INDUS IND BANK LTD., SHALON TOWERS, 34/138 D, BYPASS NORTH END, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN-682 025. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, THE INDUS IND BANK LTD., SHALON TOWERS, 34/138 D, BYPASS NORTH END, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI, PIN-682 025. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH (AROOR).S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.3484 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Consequent to default committed in repayment of monthly instalments due under a vehicle loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank, proceedings under Section 14(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. On the basis of orders issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, the Advocate Commissioner appointed by that court had taken over possession of the vehicle. The petitioner is approaching this court seeking interference for getting release of the vehicle on the premise that she is ready and willing to make payment of whatever amount overdue in the account. 2. When the matter came up for admission, as a gesture of indulgence, this court had stayed further proceedings for sale of the vehicle, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.50,000/-. It is reported that the petitioner had remitted the said amount. 3. Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank on the W.P.(C).3484/11 -2- basis of instructions submitted that, after crediting payments made there is still an outstanding liability of around Rs.9,500/-, overdue for payment. It is further mentioned that the total liability will come around Rs.1,23,000/-. Respondents are not favouring regularisation of the loan account since there is no other security as far as the loan transaction is concerned. 4. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not chosen to avail the statutory remedy provided under Section 17 (1), I am of the view that interference of this court is not justified. 5. However, learned counsel for petitioner made a submission that the petitioner is ready and willing to make payment of whatever amounts outstanding overdue for payment and on that premise she is seeking release of the vehicle on the basis of an undertaking that she is relinquishing all challenges and rights if any to invoke statutory remedy. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that, even though interference on merits is not possible, relief can be granted to the extent of permitting regularisation of the account, subject to certain conditions and also to the extent of directing respondents to release the vehicle on fulfilling such conditions. W.P.(C).3484/11 -3- 7. If the petitioner makes payment of the balance amount overdue for payment (defaulted instalments along with interest and expenses if any due) along with regular monthly instalments due for the month of March 2011 on or before 15.3.2011, the respondents shall release the vehicle to the petitioner, subject to condition of the petitioner furnishing an undertaking in the form of an affidavit to the effect that she will not part with ownership or possession of the vehicle till the entire loan amount is cleared payment. 8. It is further made clear that on payment of the amount as stipulated above, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to make payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 9. It is also made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the future monthly instalments the petitioner will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb