Madras High Court
Mohandas vs Icici Bank Limited on 25 November, 2025
S.A.No.1075 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
S.A. No. 1075 of 2014 and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
Mohandas
S/o. Sundarrajan
Kodamkudi Village
Alangadu Vattam
Sirkali Taluk,
Nagapattinam District ...Appellant
Versus
1. ICICI Bank Limited
Rep by its Branch Manager
Pondicherry
2. ICICI Bank Limited, Mayiladurai
Rep by its Branch Manager
Bava Complex, Muthuvakil Road,
Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District
3. ICICI Bank Limited, Thanjavur
Represented by its Branch Manager,
Thanjavur
4. The Manager (Loan)
ICICI Bank Limtied, Trichy
10-A Lakshmi R Gate,
11th floor, Thillai Nagar,
Trichy 620 019. ...Respondents
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:34 pm )
S.A.No.1075 of 2014
PRAYER in S.A.: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil
Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of Principal Sub Court,
Mayiladuthurai, dated 20.02.2013 made in A.S.No.3 of 2012 confirming
judgment and decree of District Munsif Court, Sirkali dated 28.09.2010
made in O.S.No.40 of 2010.
PRAYER IN CMP.: Petition filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Civil
Procedure Code to pass an order of injunction restraining the
respondents, their agent, their men and any person claiming under them
from selling the Schedule mentioned property being the subject matter of
suit in O.S.No.40 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Sirkali, either by auction or otherwise, pending disposal of the above
second appeal.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Appellant : Mr.S.Jawahar, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.T.Srinivasa Raghavan & Associates
for R1 to R4
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree
dated 20.02.2013 passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:34 pm )
Mayiladuthurai in A.S. No. 3 of 2012, confirming the judgment and
decree dated 28.09.2011 in O.S. No. 40 of 2010 on the file of the learned
District Munsif, Sirkali whereby the plaintiff sought a declaration that
the seizure of his tractor by the defendant Bank is illegal and a
consequential mandatory injunction to restore the vehicle to him, with
costs.
3. For convenience, the parties are referred to by the ranks they
held before the Trial Court. The appellant in this appeal is the plaintiff.
4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff obtained a
loan of Rs.3,74,305/- from the defendant Bank for the purchase of the
tractor bearing Registration No. TN-51-T-6017, executing the requisite
loan and hypothecation documents in its favour. He alleges that, without
prior notice and by engaging musclemen, the Bank seized the vehicle
from his residence on 04.02.2010, contrary to law and in violation of the
terms of the agreement. He also made a claim that cash of Rs.50,000/-
and a tape-recorder kept in the tractor were taken away at the time of
seizure.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:34 pm )
5. The defendants contested the suit contending that the plaintiff
had admittedly committed default in payment of instalments under the
loan agreement; that as per the agreed terms of the loan-cum-
hypothecation, the Bank was entitled to repossess the vehicle in the event
of default; that possession was taken only in exercise of such contractual
right; and that the plaintiff, being a wilful defaulter, was not entitled to
any equitable relief of declaration or injunction. Reliance was also placed
on the decision of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, Orix Auto
Finance (India) Ltd. v. Shri Jagmander Singh and Ors. [2006(1)CTC
670] holding that, where the agreement so permits, the financier can take
possession of the vehicle.
6. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence, held that the plaintiff had not disputed the loan transaction or
the execution of the loan and hypothecation documents, and that he had
admittedly defaulted in repayment. It further held that under the
hypothecation terms, the Bank was entitled to take possession of the
vehicle on default, and the plaintiff had not established any illegality in
the seizure. Consequently, the suit was dismissed on 28.09.2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:34 pm )
7. The First Appellate Court, on reappreciation of the very same
evidence, confirmed the findings of the Trial Court, holding that the
plaintiff, being in default, could not seek the equitable reliefs of
declaration and mandatory injunction and that no illegality in
repossession had been made out. The appeal was accordingly dismissed
on 20.02.2013.
8. Assailing the concurrent findings, learned counsel for the
appellant would contend that the Bank was not entitled to take
possession of the tractor without first issuing the 15-day demand notice
mandated by Clause (g)(1) of the hypothecation agreement (Ex.B1), and
that the alleged forcible repossession through recovery agents is in the
teeth of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court deprecating
seizure effected through such agents. It is further urged that the Courts
below failed to properly appreciate the testimony of DW1 with regard to
the non-issuance of notice and the way possession was taken, and that
this misreading of evidence has resulted in findings which are perverse
and contrary to the material available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:34 pm )
9. The plaintiff’s principal ground in this Second Appeal is that the
vehicle was repossessed on 04.02.2010 without the fifteen days’ prior
notice, as required under the agreement was issued to him. The defendant
dispute this and rely on a notice addressed to the defendant, Ex.B2, dated
01.01.2010. The plaintiff contends that, absent any acknowledgment or
proof of service of Ex.B2, the defendant’s plea of due notice cannot be
sustained.
10. It is true that no acknowledgment or independent proof of
service of Ex. B2 has been produced. Para 11 of the first appellate court’s
judgment reflects a proper appreciation of Ex.B2. In cross-examination,
no suggestion was put to D.W.1 that Ex.B2 was not issued; the only
query was the interval between that notice and seizure, to which D.W.1
answered “10–20 days.” That line of questioning proceeds on the footing
that Ex.B2 existed and was served. The plaint carries no specific denial
of Ex.B2, and the pleaded seizure date (04.02.2010) is consistent with an
interval of 10–20 days from the notice dated 01.01.2010. In these
circumstances, the absence of an acknowledgment or independent postal
proof is inconsequential. Once the factum of service of prior notice is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:34 pm )
established, no substantial question of law arises on this issue.
11. On a careful review of the record, this Court discerns no
perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law in the reasoning of the
Courts below. The appellant has not shown any infirmity in the
concurrent findings that would warrant interference under Section 100
CPC. The findings rest on a proper appraisal of the pleadings and
evidence and are neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. Accordingly, no
substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second
Appeal.
12. In view of the above discussion, the Second Appeal stands
dismissed at the admission stage itself. There shall be no order as to
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition, if any, stands
closed.
25 .11.2025
dpq
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order /Non-speaking order
Neutral citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:34 pm )
To
1.The Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai
2.The District Munsif, Sirkali
3. The Section Officer, V.R.Records, Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:34 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
dpq
PRE DELIVERY JUDGMENT
S.A. No. 1075 of 2014 and
25.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:34 pm )
