Petitioner sought a writ to compel consideration of his representation to pay the arbitral award amount and recover his repossessed car. The Court held the relief could not be granted in a writ petition and directed him to challenge the award before the District Court, dismissing the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P . (MD) No.23715 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.(MD) No.23715 of 2024
Jegan
...Petitioner
-vs-
3.The Authorized Signatory, Kodak Mahindra Prime Ltd., (KMPL), 2nd Floor, IVY, Tower, No.58, Trivandram Road, Palayankottai, Tirunelveli-627 002.
...Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.08.2024.
1/4
W.P . (MD) No.23715 of 2024
For Petitioner : Ms.G.Dhanalakshmi
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.08.2024 submitted before thes respondents to get back his car.
2.Considering the nature of order proposed to be passed in this writ petition, notice to the respondents is dispensed with and this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3.According to the petitioner, the petitioner has availed loan from the second respondent Bank and the petitioner committed default in repaying the loan. Hence, the second respondent took his car exercising the power provided in the purchase agreement executed in this regard. In the arbitration proceedings initiated in this regard by the respondent Bank, an award has been passed on 12.09.2024, in which a direction was given to the petitioner to pay the remaining amount or to surrender his car. According to the petitioner, now he is willing to pay the arbitral award and get back his car. In this regard, he submitted a representation 2/4
W.P . (MD) No.23715 of 2024
before the respondents. Since the same was not considered, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that this writ petition is misconceived. The relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted in a writ petition. If at all the car is sold pursuant to the hire-purchase agreement and the arbitration award, it is for the petitioner to approach the concerned District Court challenging the award passed in the arbitration proceedings. I do not find any merits in this writ petition.
04.10.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ta
3/4
W.P . (MD) No.23715 of 2024
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
ta
W.P.(MD) No.23715 of 2024
04.10.2024
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition lies to enforce compliance with an arbitration award for return of a repossessed vehicle.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jegan
The Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India, Department of Non-Banking Supervision, Chennai
The Authorized Signatory, Kodak Mahindra Prime Ltd. (KMPL), Mumbai
The Authorized Signatory, Kodak Mahindra Prime Ltd. (KMPL), Tirunelveli
N. Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
