The petitioner financier sought release of a hypothecated vehicle seized by Excise authorities for Excise Act violations. The Court held that the financier was not the owner and only provided financial assistance, thus lacking locus standi to challenge the seizure or claim the vehicle, and dismissed the writ 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.
[31661
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
IVONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINODKUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 20079 OF 2025
Between:
Tyger Capital Pvt Ltd, (Formerly Adani CapitalPvtLtd )6-3-865, 2nd Floor [r/y H-ome, Jupally complei, above RBL Bank Greenlands Ameerpet Hyderabad 16 Rep by Adulapuram Sagar S/o Gangaram Aged28 years, Occ Sales Supervisoi Rt/o H No 5-1-100/2 Ramalayam roadKukatpallyHyderabad
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiledtherewith,the High Courtmay be pleased to issue a writ or direction moreparticularly in the Nature ofwrit of mandamus declaring the impugnedorder ofthe 3rdrespondentin CR No 116Ot2O23lCPElEXlD1 dt 23-3-2024and the orders of the 2nd respondentin CR No 232 of 20231P and E|BT dt 20-6-2023 confrrmingthe orders of the 3rd respondent & set aside the same byholding thesame as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and cannot bejustified in theeye of law and consequently directthe respondents to release the l/ahenderBollaro vehicle bearing No TSO8UJBl93 to the petitioner in the interest ofjustice
' :."::1-:1:
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant interim custody of the lt/ahender 3ollaro vehicle bearing No TSO8UJ8193 by suspending the operation of impugned order of the 2nd respondent vide CR No 232of 2O23lP&ElB7 dI20-6-2023 and the orders of the 3rd respondent in CR No 232of 20231P&E/87 dt 23-3-2024 fonhwith in the interest of justice
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CH SRINIVAS
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR PROHIB TION EXCISE
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following: ORDER
;WY ' ..-.i.. ./
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
W.P.No.2OO79 of 2o25
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,learned Government Pleader for Proh. & Excise appearingfor respondent Nos.l to 3, learned Government Pieader forHome appearing for respondent No.4, and with their consent, the WritPetition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admissionstage
r'"-1
2
4 . It is the further contention of the 1>etitioner that the unofficial respondent No.5, who had availed fina.ncial assistance, had involved the suhject vehicle in commission of a crime, r,n hich is registered as FIR No.Z2/2023, dt.16.04 2023, under the provisions of Section 34(e) of the Excise Act, 1968; that the respondents_authorities have seized the subject Vehicle in connection with the aforesaid crime; that since, rhe subject vehicle is hypothecated in favour of the petitioner, the respondents_ authorities do not have the power to confiscate flre subject vehicle; and thus, the authorities ought to have handecl over the subject vehicle ro rhe petirioner
5 Per contra, Iearned Government pleader for proh & Excise appearing for respective respondents would submit that the subject vehicle is registered in the name of th(_, 6th respondent herein as owner and is shown as under hypothecation with the petitioner herein.
3
_,-.r:.4... ..7 ...:**: I '.iw
Excise Act, 1968, initially by seizing the subjectvehicleand thereafter by ordering for confiscation in terms of Section42 of the Act
7 . Learned Government Pleader further submits that it is only the owner, who can seek release of the subject vehicle for interim custody by approaching the respondents-authoritiespending adjudication of the proceedings, and since, the petitioner is not the owner of the subject vehicle, it has no locus standito maintain the present Writ Petition.
4
l 1 li
the aforesaid amount/fina,cial assistarrce from the person, to whom such facility is extended, notwithstanding the condition of the vehicle or whether the said vehicle is used b1. him or not, this Court is of the view that the petitioner, who had only extended linancial assistance cannot seek to interfer:e.wi rh the action of the respondents_authorities in seizing the subject vehicle on account of the ovr.ner of the vehicle involving himself ir commission of a crime using the subject vehicle, and also cannot approach this court either questioning the action of the respondents-authorities in seizing the subiect vehicre for violation of thr: provisions of the Excise Act, 196g or for that matter claiming himself to be the owner.
1 1. It may not be out of piace to mention that when sales tax was sought to be levied on the sale of the securecl assets by the finalce companj/, it was contended on behalf of the finance company that the sub-ject vehicle stands in the name of the owner and the saie is being made for ancl on behalf of r_he owner on the basis of the authorization given by the borrower at the time of availing financial assistance to recover the amount by seliing the vehicle by way of repossession, in the event of non_payment of
5
installments thereunder and to appropriate the sa_le proceeds towards the loan amount/financial assistance advarce dfSee: M/s
Sundaram Finq.nce Ltd,, u, The State of Keralatl.
I4 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shali stand closed.
,TRUE COPY//
SD/- A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT RE J:IO
SECTW OFFICER
To
3 Two CCs to GP for Home, High Couii foi- the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]
4 Two CD Copies KKS o TKS
'rsoo 1rz1 src ass
HIGH COURT
DATED:1 410712025
ORDER
WP.No.20079 of 2025
,')t- ItlE S s
I
I
10 5[P 2025
t.
*
oFs r,,, .)
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
&
2 issues framed by the court
Does a financier holding hypothecation have the locus standi to challenge the confiscation of a vehicle registered in the name of the owner?
Can a financier claim ownership or interfere with state authorities' action regarding a vehicle used in commission of crime?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. The State of KeralaReferred¶46
M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd., v. The State of Kerala
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Tyger Capital Pvt Ltd
State of Telangana
Commissioner Prohibition and Excise Department, Nampally Hyderabad
Dy Commissioner of Prohibition and excise, Warangal Division Warangal Telangana
Station House Officer, Maripeda Police Station
T. Vinod Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
