Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 1173
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
KULDEEP TIWARI, J.
Shishan Pal - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M No. 49805 of 2024
Decided On : 04-10-2024
For the Parties : Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Adv. , Mr. Rajesh Gaur AAG, Haryana.
Recovery of loans or seizure of vehicles must be conducted through lawful means, as emphasized by the court.
Headnote:(A) BNSS, 2023 - Section 528 - Mandamus for protection against obstruction in vehicle possession - Petitioner sought relief against private respondents attempting to seize vehicle unlawfully - Court emphasized that recovery of loans must adhere to legal procedures. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Legal Principles - Recovery of loans or seizure of vehicles must be conducted through lawful means, as established in Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Praksh Kaur and others and ICICI Bank vs. Shanti Devi Sharma and others. (Paras 2-3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking a mandamus to prevent private respondents from obstructing the plying of their vehicle, alleging unlawful attempts to seize it.
Findings of Court:
The court issued a mandamus to official respondents to ensure no obstruction occurs without following legal procedures.
Issues: The main issue was whether the private respondents could obstruct the vehicle's plying without legal authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that any recovery of loans or seizure of vehicles must be conducted legally, reinforcing the necessity of lawful procedures.
Result: Petition disposed of accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
(Kuldeep Tiwari, J.)
Through the instant petition, filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, a prayer is made for issuance of mandamus to official respondents No.1 to 3, to take necessary steps to the effect that no obstruction is caused by private respondents No. 4 and 5, in plying of the vehicle of the petitioner, as private respondents No. 4 and 5, are making an attempt to take forcibly possession of the vehicle through their henchmens.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner on asking for the relief (supra), has placed reliance upon Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Praksh Kaur and others, 2007(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 76, and ICICI Bank vs. Shanti Devi Sharma and others, 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 463, and submits that the recovery of loan or seizure of vehicles could be done only through legal means.
3. Without issuing notice of motion in the instant petition, a mandamus is passed upon the official respondents No.1 to 3, to take all necessary steps to the effect that no obstruction in plying of the vehicle of the petitioner, should be caused on the part of private respondents No.4 and 5, without adhering to the procedure of law.
4. Disposed of accordingly.
