Allowed

Bijaya Biswal v. Chola Finance, Chennai

Orissa HC20 Dec 2022WP(C)/32068/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court entertained a writ petition filed against a private finance company fearing vehicle seizure due to loan default. Despite citing precedent deeming such petitions against private entities non-maintainable, the Court allowed it. It directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of outstanding dues and propose a repayment plan within four weeks to prevent the vehicle's seizure.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit 50% of outstanding dues within four weeks; vehicle seized prohibited provided undertaking given for regular installment payment via loan rescheduling.

Bijaya Biswal Vs Chola Finance, Chennai — Consumer Protection | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) NO. 32068 OF 2022

¶3

Bijaya Biswal

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Netrananda Biswal, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Chola Finance, Chennai and another

¶8

…. Opp. Parties

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

20.12.2022

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

This writ petition has been field apprehending forceful seizure of vehicle of the Petitioner bearing Registration No.OD-05AQ-5510 (Truck) due to non-payment of the defaulted amount by Opposite Party No.2.

¶17

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that due to nonpayment of regular installments in respect of the aforesaid vehicle, the Petitioner apprehends seizure of the vehicle in question by the Opposite Party No.2 without following the guidelines given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. -v- Prakash Kaur and other s, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 711. He further submits that the Petitioner had not moved this Court earlier in respect of the aforesaid vehicle in relation to the loan account in question.

¶18

In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is ready and willing to pay 50% of the total outstanding loan dues as on date and in that event, his vehicle may not be seized. He also undertakes to pay the monthly installments regularly on rephasement of his loan account.

¶19

The writ petition against a private Finance Company is not

¶20

maintainable in view of the ratio decided in Federal Bank Ltd. -v-

¶21

Page 1 of 2

¶22

// 2 //

¶23

Sagar Thomas & Ors , reported in 2003(III) CLR 801. However, since the Petitioner is ready and willing to pay 50% of the total outstanding loan dues as on date, this Court entertains the writ petition.

¶24

Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the pandemic of COVID-19, this Court disposes of this 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 vehicle bearing Registration No. OD-05-AQ-5510 (Truck) shall not be seized. The Petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the Opposite Party No.2 to pay the monthly installments regularly on rephasement of the balance amount (after payment of 50% of the outstanding) of the loan dues. The Petitioner shall be provided with details of outstanding loan dues within two days from the date of filing of an application to that effect. The rest of the outstanding loan amount will be settled on rephasement basis keeping in mind the Regulatory Package issued by the Reserve Bank of India on 21^st May, 2020 during the pandemic situation of COVID-19.

¶25

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 would be at liberty to take over possession of the vehicle in question.

¶26

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶27

(K.R. Mohapatra)

¶28

Judge

¶29

s.s.satapathy

¶30

Page 2 of 2

Bijaya Biswal v. Chola Finance, Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijaya Biswal v. Chola Finance, Chennai

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

Malaya Ranjan Chinara Vs Odisha Information Commission, Bbsr

Banita Baliarsingh Vs Bharat Pradhan

Ishan Das Vs State of Odisha

Sarata Mohanty Vs Sabi Dei

Jitendra Nath Rath Vs Bandinipriya Rath @ Gitarani Kar

Ruchi Ice Cream Factory, Ganjam Vs Executive Engineer (Tpsodl), Purushottampur Electrical Div.