Allowed

Adishree Logitech Pvt. Ltd. v. the Bm, Indusind Bank, Jagatsinghpur

Orissa HC12 Jul 2022WP(C)/14217/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge order of the Orissa High Court entertaining a writ petition to challenge the seizure of a hydraulic excavator. The court directed the release of the machine if the petitioner deposited 50% of outstanding dues within four weeks and undertook to pay the remaining EMIs on a rephased schedule during the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Release of the seized machine upon deposit of 50% outstanding dues within four weeks and filing of an undertaking to pay rephased EMIs regularly.

Adishree Logitech Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Bm, Indusind Bank… — Banking and Recovery | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 14217 of 2022

¶3

Adishree Logitech Pvt. Ltd.

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Sanjib Mohanty, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. The Branch Manager, Indusind Bank, Opp. Parties Jagatsinghpur and others

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

12.07.2022

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

Petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing forceful seizure of his Machine (Hydraulic Excavator) bearing Registration No.5Y-22C-9 due to non-payment of the defaulted amount by Opposite Party No.3.

¶16

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that due to non-payment of regular installments with regard to the aforesaid Machine bearing Registration No.5Y-22C-9 of the Petitioner has been seized in 13^th April, 2022 by Opposite Party No.3 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. He further submits that the Petitioner had not moved this Court earlier in respect of the aforesaid machine in relation to the loan account in question.

¶17

In course of hearing, 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 his machine

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

may be released. He also undertakes to pay the instalments regularly on rephasement of his outstanding EMIs. It is submitted that the Petitioner has never defaulted in payment of the instalments; it is because of the COVID-19 situation, this situation arose. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has not moved this Court earlier for release of the machine in question. Further, the machine in question is still lying with the financier and no auction in respect of the same has yet been made.

¶21

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 , reported in 2003(III) CLR 801. However, since the Petitioner is ready and willing to pay the outstanding dues, this Court entertains the writ petition.

¶22

In view of the above submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner is earning his livelihood by utilizing the machine bearing Registration No.5Y-22C-9 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 total outstanding loan dues as on date within a period of four weeks hence, the machine in question shall be released. The Petitioner shall also file an undertaking before opposite party No.3 to pay the monthly installments regularly on rephasement of the rest of the EMIs. The Petitioner shall be provided with details of outstanding dues within two days from the date of filing of an application to that effect. The rest of EMIs will be rephased keeping in mind the Regulatory Package issued by the

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

Reserve Bank of India on 21^st May 2020 during the pandemic situation of COVID-19.

¶26

6.1 It is made clear that on failure on the part of the Petitioner to pay any of the instalments after rephasement, as stated above, the opposite party No.3 will be at liberty to take over possession of the machine in question.

¶27

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.

¶28

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶29

s.s.satapathy

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Adishree Logitech Pvt. Ltd. v. the Bm, Indusind Bank, Jagatsinghpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adishree Logitech Pvt. Ltd. v. the Bm, Indusind Bank, Jagatsinghpur

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

Manoranjan Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Rangadhar Hota Vs Sudhir Kumar Mallick

Divyasnata Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Ravi Shankar Garg Vs Regional Transport Authority Cum Taxing Authority, Chandikhole

Nursingha Behera Vs State of Odisha

Bibhuti Bhusana Puhan Vs Regional Transport Authority Cum Taxing Authority, Chandikhole