Disposed

Munindra Kumar Dev Sarma v. Mahndra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Apr 2022WP(C)/2622/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerns loan agreements for school buses. The petitioner faced repayment defaults due to the pandemic. The court disposed of the petition at the motion stage, directing the petitioner to submit a regularization proposal and deposit Rs. 4,00,000, while restraining the respondent from repossession until a reasoned order is passed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to submit regularization proposal and deposit Rs. 4,00,000; restraint on respondent from repossession until reasoned order.

Munindra Kumar Dev Sarma Vs Mahndra and Mahindra… — Consumer Protection | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010070962022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2622/2022

¶5

MUNINDRA KUMAR DEV SARMA

¶6

S/O. DEBEN SARMA, R/O. HOUSE NO.14, MAIDAMGAON, PUBALI PATH, TRINYAN NAGAR, P.O. BELTOLA, PIN-781028.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

MAHNDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD AND 3 ORS 2ND FLOOR, SADHANA HOUSE, (BEHIND MAHINDRA TOWERS), 570 PB MARG, WORLI, MUMBAI-400018, MAHARASTRA.

¶9

2:THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REP. BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER 11TH FLOOR CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD MUMBAI-400001.

¶10

3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER

¶11

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA 11TH FLOOR CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD MUMBAI-400001.

¶12

4:THE MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD.

¶13

5TH FLOOR MEGHA PLAZA BELTOLA CHARIALI GUWAHATI-29 KAMRUP (M)

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

ASSAM

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B P BORAH

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶19

ORDER

¶20

08.04.2022

¶21

Heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

The case, in brief, of the petitioner, as projected in this writ petition, is that he has entered into 3 [three] loan agreements with the respondent no. 4, a Non-Banking Finance Company [NBFC], for 3 [three] school buses in and around September, 2019. After purchasing the school buses, the petitioner had applied for and has been granted Contract Carriage Permits [School Bus] for all the three school buses bearing registration nos. AS-01LC-7914, AS-01-LC-7915 & AS-01-LC-7916. The school buses had been engaged by the Army Public School, Guwahati to carry the students of Army Public School and accordingly, the petitioner had also started paying the installment amounts to the respondent no. 4 as per the financial arrangements agreed to by the parties.

¶23

During the period upto March, 2021, the payment of installments were regular. But after March, 2021, the payment of installments to the respondent no. 4 for the said three school buses became irregular due to emergence of Covid-19 pandemic and declaration of lockdown by the Government. Due to such situation, the Army Public School in which the petitioner used to provide school bus services had stopped physical classes. As a result, the Army Public School authorities stopped using the school buses to carry the students of the School. Such stoppage had, in turn, resulted in non-payment of the regular monthly

¶24

Page No.# 3/5

¶25

rental/higher charges to the petitioner by the School authorities. Resultantly, there were some defaults on the part of the petitioner in payment of the installment amounts against the three school buses in a regular manner.

¶26

Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent no. 4 had initiated arbitration proceedings by appointing an Arbitrator purportedly in terms of the loan agreements executed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4. The petitioner was served with three notices, all dated 11.12.2021, by the Arbitrator in respect of the three school buses. By the said notices, it was informed to the petitioner that the respondent no. 4 had recalled the loan agreements and submitted statements of claim indicating different amounts as outstanding dues in respect of the three loan agreements. The petitioner responded to the said three notices and participated in the arbitration proceedings so initiated. The petitioner stated to have submitted proposals for regularizing the loan accounts of the petitioner. It is submitted by Mr. Goswami that the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 had also arrived at some kind of settlement for regularizing the loan accounts. He has referred to the deposits the petitioner had made in favour of the respondent no. 4 on 28.02.2022 to buttress his such submission. It is his submission that the respondent no. 4 despite receiving a reasonable amount against the three loan accounts, has not responded positively by stating any amount for one-time settlement for the loan accounts.

¶27

The petitioner is now apprehending that the respondent no. 4 in violation of the extant guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, might resort actions like re-possessing the three school buses forcibly at any point of time. The petitioner has averred that the respondent no. 4 has already appointed recovery agent for re-possession of the three school buses. In the event such re-possession takes place, the same would adversely affect the very source of livelihood of the petitioner and the petitioner would also not be in a position to repay the outstanding dues within the reasonable time period. Mr. Goswami has further submitted that since the situation has improved in the meantime and the Army Public School has opened, the petitioner is likely to receive the rental/higher charges regularly by operating the school buses for the School. But as the recovery agent appointed by the respondent no. 4 is likely to re-possess the school buses at point of time, the petitioner with such apprehension, is prevented from operating the three school buses, which has affected his

¶28

Page No.# 4/5

¶29

livelihood. The same has also curtailed the scope for him in repaying the outstanding dues to the respondent no. 4. Despite all such shortcomings, the petitioner is ready to pay a reasonable amount against the outstanding dues for the three school buses to the respondent no. 4 within a period of one month. But despite approaches being made by the petitioner, the respondent no. 4 has not yet responded to such proposal of the petitioner in a positive manner. Mr. Goswami has submitted that It is in such situation, the petitioner is compelled to approach this Court by this writ petition.

¶30

Having considered the above submissions of Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and taking note of the averments made by the petitioner in this petition to the effect that the petitioner is interested to regularize the loan accounts within a period of next 6 [six] months provided he is permitted to operate the three school buses regularly, this Court considers it is appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of motion itself, without issuing notice to the respondents, in the peculiar facts and circumstances projected by the petitioner. As an inclination has been shown by the petitioner to regularize the loan accounts with the respondent no. 4 in respect of the three school buses within a period of next 6 [six] months, the petitioner shall submit a proposal to the respondent no. 4 within a period of 1 [one] month stating the details in what manner the petitioner is going to regularize the loan accounts. With such proposal, the petitioner shall also deposit an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-. If such a proposal with the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- is received by the respondent no. 4, the respondent no. 4 shall consider such proposal within a period of 15 [fifteen] days from the date of receipt of such proposal on its own merits and thereafter, shall convey its decision by passing an reasoned order. The order so passed, shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith at the recorded address of the petitioner. It is observed that till such order is passed or for a period of 1 [one] month, whichever is earlier, the respondent no. 4 shall not take any coercive measure like re-possession of the three school buses. It is made clear that this order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case projected by the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 is at liberty, after passing such order, to take further action with regard to the loan accounts in terms of the loan agreements without any further reference to this Court. In the event there is any subsequent cause of action as a result of passing of the order by the respondent no. 4, the petitioner may resort to such remedy, as may be

¶31

Page No.# 5/5

¶32

permitted under the law.

¶33

This order disposes of the writ petition.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Munindra Kumar Dev Sarma v. Mahndra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munindra Kumar Dev Sarma v. Mahndra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Abinava Info Systems Private Limited and Anr. Vs State Bank of India and Anr.

Bichitra Sarma and 10 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Nilakanta Baruah and 12 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Munindra Kumar Dev Sarma and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

M/S Ambikagiri Gpss Limited Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Sanjit Boro Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.