Dismissed¶19

Rippy Singh Baweja v. Union of India

Orissa HC23 Sept 2025WP(C)/6623/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack | W.P.(C) No.6623 of 2023 | Decided 23.09.2025 | Coram: Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi. Petitioner Rippy Singh Baweja (counsel: Ashis Kumar Mishra) vs Union of India & Ors. (counsel: M. R. Khatua). Borrower sought return of truck repossessed by agency of HDB Finance Service and settlement of overdue loan under RBI Guidelines of OTS Scheme. Held: writ petition against a private finance company not maintainable per Supreme Court judgments; court-attempted mediation failed; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None ¶19

Rippy Singh Baweja Vs Union of India — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6623 of 2023

¶2

Rippy Singh Baweja ..... Petitioner

¶3

Mr. Ashis KumarMishra, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Union of India & Ors. Opposite Parties Mr. M. R. Khatua,

¶6

Advocate

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER

¶9

23.09.2025

¶10

Order No.

¶11

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶12

2. The Petitioner, by filing this Writ Petition, has sought for a direction from this Court to the Opposite Parties to hand over the vehicle to the present Petitioner and settle the overdue loan by calculating the correct amount under the RBI Guidelines of OTS Scheme.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has availed a loan from HDB Finance Service to purchase a truck. As per the loan agreement, he was paying the EMI. But, due to serious health condition of his mother, he was unable to pay the monthly installment for seven to eight months. When the finance company asked for the extra due, the Petitioner was ready to pay the installment of three to four months despite his

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-Sep-2025 17:37:21

¶16

Page 1 of 2 .

¶17

precarious economic condition. Later, an agency who was deployed by the said finance company has pulled the truck forcefully which was loaded with goods. Hence, the present petitioner has taken the shelter of this Court.

¶18

4. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and on going through the averments made in this Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that this Writ Petition has been filed against a private finance company, which is not maintainable as per the plethora of judgment of the Supreme Court. However, this Court had made an attempt for mediation between the parties and sent them to the mediation centre which is miserably failed.

¶19

5. In such view of the matter, this Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶20

(Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi)

¶21

Judge

¶22

Gitanjali

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-Sep-2025 17:37:21