SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Mad) 1024

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.
A.Balamurugan - Petitioner
Vs.
The Reserve Bank of India, rep. By its Secretary, Head Office, Fort Clacis, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – Respondent
W.P(MD).No.435 of 2016 and W.M.P(MD)No.355 of 2016
Decided on : 18-01-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. G.Kandhavadivelan
For the Respondent: Mr. N.Dlipkumar

The court emphasized the importance of resolving the disputed loan amount and initiating legal proceedings, while directing the release of the seized vehicle upon payment and deposit of the disputed amount.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Vehicle Loan - Disputed Amount - Release of Vehicle

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a Mandamus to direct the respondent bank to return the seized vehicle due to a disputed loan amount.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the petitioner to pay the disputed amount and a major portion of the due, and to initiate legal proceedings for the remaining dispute. The respondent bank was directed to release the vehicle upon payment and deposit of the disputed amount.

Issues: Disputed loan amount, release of seized vehicle

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner should pay the disputed amount and a major portion of the due, and initiate legal proceedings for the remaining dispute. The respondent bank was directed to release the vehicle upon payment and deposit of the disputed amount.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed with directions for the petitioner to pay the due amount, deposit the disputed amount, and initiate legal proceedings, and for the respondent bank to release the vehicle upon compliance.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed seeking for a Mandamus directing the second respondent to return the vehicle Ashok Leyland / ECOMENT 912 FSD bearing Registration No.TN 74 AA 4599 to the petitioner by taking note of the guidelines on Fair Practices Code for Lenders

issued in DBOD.Leg.No.BC.104/09.07.007/2002-03 dated 05.05.2003 by the 1st respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

3. The petitioner borrowed vehicle loan from the second respondent bank. The said vehicle was seized by the second respondent bank for non payment of balance loan amount. Now, the present writ petition is filed seeking for the release of the vehicle.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submitted that as on date a sum of Rs. 3,68,000/-is approximately due and liable to be paid by the petitioner and if the same is paid, the respondent bank will release the vehicle.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is liable to pay only a sum of Rs. 3,22,756.40 and he is ready and willing to pay the same. Therefore, the disputed amount between the parties is only about Rs.46,000/-.

6. In view of the fact that the petitioner has offered to pay major portion of the due and the dispute between the parties is only with regard to a sum of Rs. 46,000/-, this Court is of the view that the respondent bank can be directed to receive the said amount offered by the petitioner and release the vehicle, if the interest of the bank is protected by way of issuing a

direction to the petitioner to deposit the disputed amount in the fixed deposit with the second respondent bank, pending disposal of the dispute before the appropriate forum.

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(a) The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.3,22,756.40 to the second respondent bank, within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(b) The petitioner shall also make deposit of Rs.46,000/-in a fixed deposit account, maintained by the second respondent bank, which he shall not encash till the disposal of the dispute with regard to Rs. 46,000/-by the competent forum.

(c) On making the payment of Rs. 3,22,756.40 and also depositing of Rs. 46,000/-as stated supra by the petitioner, the second respondent bank will release the vehicle forthwith.

(d) The second respondent bank shall not deal with the fixed deposit amount of Rs. 46,000/-in any manner till the dispute is decided in respect of such amount by the competent forum as stated supra.

(e) The petitioner shall initiate appropriate legal proceedings before the competent forum, with regard to the dispute in respect of Rs.46,000/-, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top