Allowed

Indusind Bank Limited v. The Regional Transport officer

Madras HC11 May 2023WP/14247/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a mandamus directing the Regional Transport Officer to remove blacklisting entries on three vehicles hypothecated to the petitioner bank. The Court held that the bank was entitled to dispose of seized vehicles and directed the removal of the entries.

What did the court decide?

Directing the first respondent to remove blacklisting entries of the specified vehicles within four weeks.

Indusind Bank Limited Vs The Regional Transport officer — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.14247, 14248 and 14250 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.05.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

Writ Petition Nos.14247, 14248 and 14250 of 2023

¶7

M/s.INDUSIND Bank Limited

¶8

Rep.by its Manager-Legal, N.Veeraragavan having its registered office at No.115 & 116 G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.

¶9

…. Petitioner in all W.Ps.

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

1.The Regional Transport Officer Regional Transport Office Kamarajar Salai, Saram Puducherry 605 013.

¶12

2.The Superintendent of Police Economic Offices Wing (Ramanathapuram) Camp @ Thiruchirapalli, Trichy.

¶13

3.M/s.Raahath Transport No.2, Subbaiah Street Ellaipillaichavady Puducherry 605 001.

¶14

…. Respondents

¶15

Prayer in W.P.No.14247/2023 : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to remove the entry of blacklisting of the vehicle bearing Registration No.PY-05-B-1642 which is hypothecated to the petitioner bank so as to enable the registration of the vehicles to the prospective buyers.

¶16

1 / 6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.Nos.14247, 14248 and 14250 of 2023

¶19

Prayer in W.P.No.14248/2023 : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to remove the entry of blacklisting of the vehicle bearing Registration No.PY-05-D-6490 which is hypothecated to the petitioner bank so as to enable the registration of the vehicles to the prospective buyers.

¶20

Prayer in W.P.No.14250/2023 : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to remove the entry of blacklisting of the vehicle bearing Registration No.PY-05-D-6491 which is hypothecated to the petitioner bank so as to enable the registration of the vehicles to the prospective buyers.

¶21

In All W.Ps

¶22

For Petitioner : Ms.Meera Gnanasekar For Respondents : Mr.V.Vasantha Kumar, Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) - for R1 Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, Government Advocate-for R2

¶23

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner has filed the above writ petitions seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to remove the entry of blacklisting of the vehicles bearing Registration Nos. PY-05B-1642, PY-05D-6490 and PY-05D-6491, which are hypothecated to the petitioner bank in order to enable registration of the vehicles to the prospective buyers.

¶25

2 / 6

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.Nos.14247, 14248 and 14250 of 2023

¶28

It is the grievance of the petitioner bank that as a banking company, in the course of their business in October 2017, one of their customers viz., the 3^rd respondent approached the petitioner bank for availing loan to purchase commercial vehicles. In respect of the said loan, the petitioner bank entered into loan agreements with the 3^rd respondent and necessary hypothecation endorsements over the vehicles were also effected in the registration certificates of the respective vehicles. In view of the default committed by the borrower, the vehicles were seized from the 3^rd respondent on 01.07.2022 and when the sale process was initiated by the petitioner bank, they came to know that the 2^nd respondent had addressed a communication to the 1^st respondent and in turn the vehicles were blacklisted. In view of the said blacklisting, the petitioner bank is unable to sell the vehicles though they are empowered to do so in law.

¶29

Heard Mr.V.Vasantha Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) appearing for the 1^st respondent and Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, learned Government Advocate appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶30

Though the learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) appearing for the 1^st respondent sought for time to get instructions, this Court finds that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents because the petitioner is entitled in law to dispose off the seized vehicles under the contractual agreements with the 3^rd

¶31

3 / 6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.Nos.14247, 14248 and 14250 of 2023

¶34

respondent. The entry of blacklisting of the vehicles does not have any statutory backing, the communication sent by the 2^nd respondent to the 1^st respondent also does not have any legal force. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that having taken re-possession of the vehicles, the petitioner bank should be allowed to sell the vehicles in accordance with the loan agreements entered into with the 3^rd respondent.

¶35

In such view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1^st respondent to remove the entry of blacklisting of the vehicles bearing Registration Nos. PY-05-B-1642, PY-05-D-6490 and PY-05-D-6491 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶36

11.05.2023

¶37

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No KST

¶38

4 / 6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.Nos.14247, 14248 and 14250 of 2023

¶41

¶42

1.The Regional Transport Officer Regional Transport Office Kamarajar Salai, Saram Puducherry 605 013.

¶43

2.The Superintendent of Police Economic Offices Wing (Ramanathapuram) Camp @ Thiruchirapalli, Trichy.

¶44

5 / 6

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.Nos.14247, 14248 and 14250 of 2023

¶47

P.B.BALAJI, J.

¶48

KST

¶49

W.P.Nos.14247, 14248 and 14250 of 2023

¶50

11.05.2023

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

6 / 6

Indusind Bank Limited v. The Regional Transport officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indusind Bank Limited v. The Regional Transport officer

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

D.Daniel Vs U.Padmavathy

R.Sampathkumar Vs The Executive Engineer

New Century Book House Private Limited Vs R.Mutharasan

M/s.Srikals Graphics Private Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Exide Industries Limited Vs Deputy commissioner (Ct)

M/s.Mgm Edible Oils Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India