WPMS/808/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 3844 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  WPMS No. 808 of 2021
                                  Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Addl. C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand.

The nature of relief, which has been formulated by the petitioner, and as it has been claimed before this Court, in fact, is the release of the vehicle, which is said to have been taken over by the respondent Nos.4 and 5, which are the private financing companies.

The issue would be as to whether, the writ of mandamus, which has been sought, as against the respondent No.5, who has seized the vehicle, any direction could be issued to respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, for the release of the vehicle from the possession of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, is a matter in controversy.

The petitioner contends, that though without there being any agreement for loan on record, that the issue would stand covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in 2007 (2) Supreme 422, Manager ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Prakash Kaur and others. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the controversy, about the powers, which could be exercised by the private banks, for recovering the amount was deprecated by engagement of the armed personnel or private goons to recover the amount. But this Court cannot be oblivion of the fact, that the said matter related to the Bank, which otherwise stood recognized under the Banking Regulation Act, which may not be a case akin to the present case, where it is exclusively a private finance company, against whom the allegation has been levelled of having taken in possession of the vehicle, in question, by use of force, which was mortaged for the purposes of availing financial assistance extended by it.

The second judgment, on which, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as reported in 2011 Supreme (SC) 1072, Citicorp. Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijayalaxmi. After having gone through the judgment, in fact, it was a case where the implications of the Recovery of Dues to Bank and Financial Institution Act 1993, was the subject matter of consideration, while scrutinizing the judgment, which was rendered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, on the Revision Petition, which was decided and was emanating from the decision of the State Commission, under the Consumer Grievance Redressal Act.

In order to argue the issue as to the writ would be the available remedy as against the private finance company for the nature of relief sought in the Writ Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for that he may be granted time till 27th September, 2021, to argue the matter.

Put up this Writ Petition on 27th September, 2021.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) Dated 23.09.2021 Shiv