Allowed

Sajir Khan v. Regional Manager Reserve Bank of India

Orissa HC10 Dec 2020WP(C)/30751/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition against a private finance company's seizure of a vehicle despite generally being non-maintainable. Directing release upon depositing 50% of dues and filing an undertaking for regular repayment post-rephasing of the loan.

What did the court decide?

Vehicle released upon deposit of 50% of outstanding dues within four weeks and filing an undertaking for regular repayment after loan rephasing.

Sajir Khan Vs Regional Manager Reserve Bank… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 30751 of 2020

¶2

10.12.2020

¶3

Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶4

Heard Mr. B.M. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶5

The petitioner in this writ petition assails the forceful seizure of the vehicle bearing registration No.OD02AF-3494 (Tipper) by opposite party No.2-Branch Manager, Hinduja Leyalnd Fin Co. Ltd., Cuttack Road, Bhubaneswar.

¶6

Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to non-payment of regular installments with regard to the aforesaid vehicle, the same has been seized by opposite party No.2 without following the guidelines given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kaur and others , reported in (2007) 2 SCC 711.

¶7

In course of hearing, Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 50% of the outstanding dues as on date and in that event, the vehicle may be released in his favour. He also undertakes to pay the monthly installments regularly on rephasement of his loan amount.

¶8

The writ application against a private finance company is not maintainable in view of the ratio decided in Federal Bank Ltd -vs- Sagar Thomas & Ors ,

¶9

-2-

¶10

reported in 2003(III) CLR 801 . However, since the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 50% of the outstanding dues, this Court entertains the writ petition. 7. Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the petitioner is earning his livelihood from the Tipper bearing registration No.OD-02AF-3494 as well as the pandemic of COVID-19, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction that in the event the petitioner deposits 50% of the outstanding loan dues as on date with the opp. party no.2-Company within a period of four weeks hence, the vehicle bearing registration No.OD02AF-3494 (Tipper) shall be released in his favour. The petitioner shall also file an undertaking before opposite party No.2-Company to the effect that he shall pay the monthly installments regularly on rephasement of the rest of the loan amount. The petitioner shall be provided with the details of outstanding loan amount within two days from the date of filing of an application to that effect.

¶11

7.1 It is made clear that on failure on the part of the petitioner to pay the installments regularly after rephasement, the opposite party No.2-Company would be at liberty to take over the possession of the vehicle in question.

¶12

7.2 Authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court in the manner prescribed

¶13

-3-

¶14

in this Courts Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020 shall be treated at par with the certified copy of this order.

¶15

……………………….. K.R.Mohapatra, J.

¶16

bct .

Sajir Khan v. Regional Manager Reserve Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajir Khan v. Regional Manager Reserve Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhisekh Samantray Vs Sulekha Mahapatra

Manas Ranjan Pati Vs State of Odisha

Sarbeswar Lenka Vs the Collector Jagatsinghpur

Tuni Behera Vs State of Odisha

Laxmipriya Singh Vs Lalat Kishore Singh

Sanjay Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha