Disposed

Praveen Kumar Mishra v. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited through Its Branch Manager

Delhi HC18 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/2281/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking settlement of a vehicle loan dispute and issuance of a No Objection Certificate. The court held that recovery rights must yield to the borrower's Article 21 rights absent due process, restrained repossession except per law, and disposed of the petition as not pressed.

What did the court decide?

Interim restraint: petitioner not to sell/encumber vehicle; respondent not to repossess it without due process; loan dispute left for parties' legal remedies.

Praveen Kumar Mishra Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Financial… — Banking and Recovery | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~76

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2281/2026 & CM APPL. 11035/2026, CM APPL. 11036/2026 PRAVEEN KUMAR MISHRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shivam Dixit, Adv.

¶4

versus

¶5

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER .....Respondent Through: Mr. Avanish Kumar, Adv.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 18.02.2026

¶8

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

¶9

a) “To issue the directions to the Respondent to settle the loan dispute with the Petitioner in respect of the vehicle i.e. UP- 14GT-9838 (Maruti Suzuki Ertiga);

¶10

b) To issue the No Objection Certificate regarding no due in respect of the vehicle i.e. UP-14GT-9838 (Maruti Suzuki Ertiga)

¶11

c) To pass any other order/Writ, which this Hon’ble Court deem tit and proper keeping in view the above stated facts and circumstances in interest of justice.”

¶12

It is stated by Mr. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner, that according to the calculation of the petitioner, the petitioner has paid the entire amount of loan and some additional amount as well.The

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/02/2026 at 12:57:26

¶15

respondent is refusing to issue NOC and is also threatening to snatch the vehicle from the petitioner.

¶16

For the said reason, issue notice.

¶17

Mr. Kumar, learned counsel accepts notice, seeks time to file a reply. However the same is not necessary as Banks and Finance Companies are constitutionally bound to act in accordance with law and cannot violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India.

¶18

When the right of recovery is weighed against a person’s right to livelihood and dignity under Article 21, the latter must prevail and cannot be curtailed except by due process of law. The seizure and repossession of vehicles without adhering to RBI guidelines and judicial precedents is patently illegal and unconstitutional.

¶19

In view of the above, the petitioner will not sell, mortgage or create third party rights on the vehicle and the respondent will not re-possess the vehicle without following the due process of law.

¶20

As regards the amount of loan to be paid, the same is a disputed question of facts and shall not be decided by this Court. The parties are at liberty to avail their legal rights in this regard.

¶21

In view of the order passed, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the petition and the same is disposed of.

¶22

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶23

FEBRUARY 18, 2026/sp

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/02/2026 at 12:57:26

Praveen Kumar Mishra v. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited through Its Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar Mishra v. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited through Its Branch Manager

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

Similar cases

Rajni Devi Vs Google India and Others

M/S Green One Drive Private Limited Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Lalit Narayan Mithila University Vs Delhi International Arbitration Centre & Ors.

Mgr Anna Dravid Munnetra Kazhagam Vs Election Commission of India

Bipin Kumar Vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr.

Rajiv Pandey Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Runwell India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

M/Sverandah Moonshine through Its Director Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Devang Pravin Mody Vs Reserve Bank of India & Anr.

M/S Aastha Gill Media Technologies LLP Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Mcd) & Ors.

Disha College & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Khanna Paper Mills Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Akal Kirpa Private I.T.I Vs Directorate General of Training & Anr.

Prity Kumari Vs Insurance Ombudsman & Anr.