Disposed

Smt. Rachna v. Union of India, Deptt. of Financial Services, New Delhi Thru. Secy. and Others

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2024WRIC/4181/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking mandamus against a finance company that allegedly took possession of the petitioner's hypothecated tractor contrary to RBI guidelines. Bench held the matter requires consideration, issued notice to the finance company and directed interim protection preventing sale of the tractor.

What did the court decide?

Notice ordered to opposite parties 4 and 5; tractor not to be sold till next listing date.

Smt. Rachna vs Union of India, Deptt. of Financial… — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4181 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Rachna Respondent :- Union Of India, Deptt. Of Financial Services, New Delhi Thru. Secy. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Bindeshwari Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Shri Onkar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Harsha Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner no.1-Union of India and Shri S. K. Khare, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents.

¶6

By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties no.2 and 3 to take appropriate action against the opposite party no.4 for illegally taking possession of the petitioner's tractor which was hypotheticated with opposite party no.4. in the light of the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India.

¶7

Regarding maintainability of the writ petition against the opposite party no.4-HDB Financial Services Ltd., learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner had purchased the tractor for earning her livelihood, action of the opposite party no.4 illegally taking away the tractor, in violation of the guidelines of the Reserves Bank of India, has adversely affected her fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will be maintainable.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. vs. Prakash Kaur and others, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 532 and a decision of Patna High Court in the case of Dhananjay Seth vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2023 (4) BLJ 284.

¶9

The matter requires consideration.

¶10

Issue notice to the opposite party no.4 and 5 returnable at an early date.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner shall take necessary steps in this regard within three days.

¶12

List this case in the week commencing 01.07.2024.

¶13

Meanwhile, it is provided that the tractor of the petitioner shall not be sold away by the opposite parties no.4 and 5 till the next date of listing.

¶14

Order Date :- 13.5.2024 akhilesh/-

¶15

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶16

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Rachna v. Union of India, Deptt. of Financial Services, New Delhi Thru. Secy. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rachna v. Union of India, Deptt. of Financial Services, New Delhi Thru. Secy. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Prakash Giri Vs Rakesh Giri and 7 Others

Santram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Vishnu Kumar and 6 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and 2 Others

Union Bank of India,Stressed Assets Mgmt.Branch Thru. Auth.Officer/Chief Manager Rajeev Kumar Verma Vs Debt Recovery Tribunal,Lko. Thru. Its Presiding Officer and 2 Others

Panna Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Bindu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others