Financial institutions must adhere to due process in vehicle repossession, and courts cannot alter agreed contractual terms under writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Parashar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Indian Bank for the respondent nos. 1 & 2.

2. The projections made in the writ petition can be narrated, at first, in brief. The petitioner has stated that in the year 2022, he purchased a vehicle bearing Registration no. AS-01-FG/9546 [Aura 1.2 MT Kappa S (Hyundai)] [‘the subject-vehicle’, for short] after obtaining financial facility from the respondent Bank on 21.10.2022. As per the terms and conditions of an Agreement executed with the respondent Bank, the petitioner was required to pay eighty-four nos. of Equated Monthly Installments [EMIs] @ Rs. 10,557/- per month in order to liquidate the loan amount.

3. The petitioner in the instant writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has sought a direction to the respondent Bank authorities not to re- possess the hypothecated subject-vehicle without following due process of law and to allow the petitioner to repay the outstanding dues in six equal installments along with the regular monthly installments in respect of the financial facility he obtained to purchase the subject-vehicle.

4. In view of the nature of grievances raised in this writ petition and on the statements of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank that the respondent no. 3 is an authorized Recovery Agent / Seizure and Disposal Agent [SADA] of the respondent Bank and he has received the necessary instructions for disposal of the writ petition, the writ petition is taken up for final consideration, at the motion stage itself, without issuing notice to the respondent no. 3, and as consented by the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Mr. Parashar, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that after purchasing the subject-vehicle under the Agreement, the petitioner paid the EMIs in time without fail during the first year. But thereafter, due to sudden illness of his sister, the petitioner could not deposit the EMIs in time. It has been submitted that, as in the meantime, the petitioner also lost his job, the default in payment of the EMIs occurred for several months and as a result, the dues towards EMIs payable to the respondent Bank got accumulated.

6. On 26.09.2024, the petitioner was served with a Possession –cum- Sale Notice by the respondent no. 2 stating that by the Notice dated 10.07.2024, the petitioner was requested to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,50,059/- along with further interest. The Possession –cum– Sale Notice had further mentioned that as the petitioner had failed to deposit the amount in terms of the Notice dated 10.07.2024, a decision had been taken to take possession of the hypothecated subject-vehicle on any day from 11.10.2024 onwards and the Bank would sale the same to recover its dues through its authorized Recovery Agent/SADA, that is, the respondent no. 3. By the Possession –cum- Sale Notice, the petitioner was requested to ensure that he or his authorized representative should be present at the place to cooperate in peaceful handing over the hypothecated subject-vehicle to the Recovery Agent/SADA, appointed by the Bank. The Possession –cum- Sale Notice further mentioned that the petitioner would be at liberty to repay to the respondent Bank’s dues on any day before the date of sale and get back possession of the hypothecated subject-vehicle.

7. Mr. Parashar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner did not receive