VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Gursharan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.
The present batch of 30 writ petitions raising a common question of law are being decided by a single judgment.
2. The question which arises for consideration before this Court is as regards the scope and maintainability of writ petition in the matters of re-possession of the vehicles financed by the Private Finance Companies/Private Banks.
3. For the facility of reference facts are being referred from CWP No.7599 of 2020 titled as ' Gursharan Singh v. State of Punjab and others'.
Facts
4. The petitioner who is a transporter by profession had purchased a vehicle bearing Registration No.PB-23 T 4785 after obtaining finance from respondent No.7 i.e. HDB Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as the 'Finance Company') for a sum of Rs.19,25,000/-. The amount was to be repaid in 47 monthly instalments of Rs.50,000/- each which were to commence w.e.f. 04.03.2017 and payable till 04.02.2021. It is averred that 35 instalments amounting to a total of Rs.17,50,000/- were paid and that 12 instalments were due. An additional amount of Rs.4 lakhs was financed for fabrication of the body of the vehicle for which 47 equated monthly instalments of Rs.10,420x30=3,1
Amrik Singh v. DCB Bank Limited
Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani
Anup Sarmah v. Bhola Nath Sharma
Citicorp. Maruti Finance Ltd. v. S. Vijayalaxmi
Devi Ispat Limited v. State Bank of India
Dr. Amitabh Varma v. The Commissioner of Police
Dwarkanath v. Income Tax Officer
Eastern Coal Fields Limited v. Kalyan
Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas
Gursharan Singh v. State of Punjab
ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur
ICICI Bank v. Shanti Devi Sharma
India Thermal Power Limited v. State of M.P.
J. Rajiv Subramaniyan v. Pandiyas
Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University
Joshi Technologies International Incorporation v. Union of India
K.A. Mathai alias Babu v. Kora Bibbikutty
M/s Magma Fincorp Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari
M/s Punjab Kashmir Finance Limited v. The State of Haryana
M/s Sundram Finance Limited, Chennai v. Raj Kumar
Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur, AIR 2007 SC 1349
Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd. v. M/s Vasudeva Publicity Service
Narinder Kumar Singla v. State of Punjab
Orix Auto Finance (India) Lrd v. Jagmander Singh
Phoenix ARC Private Limited v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology
Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Imanual
Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab
Rajasthan Advocates Association v. Union of India
Ramakrishnan Mission v. Kago Kunya
St. Marry's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava
Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan
Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Tarun Bhargava v. State of Haryana
Trigun Chand Thakur v. State of Bihar
Writ petitions against private financial institutions under the SARFAESI Act are not maintainable; statutory remedies must be pursued instead.
Writ jurisdiction is not applicable for disputes arising from private loans, emphasizing that private financial institutions do not act as public authorities and contractual agreements cannot invoke ....
A private company does not qualify as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution and is not subject to writ jurisdiction unless it performs a public duty.
A writ petition against a Non-Banking Financial Company is not maintainable as it does not perform a public function, referring to precedents set by the Supreme Court.
The main legal point established in this judgment is that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters involving recovery of dues under....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.