Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 2214
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G.ARUN, J
ANNIEMOL A – Appellant
Versus
CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE CO. LTD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 166 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
For the Respondents: SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP.
Authority to seize and sell a vehicle under loan agreement affirmed; rights of the petitioner to pursue other legal remedies acknowledged.
Headnote:The petitioner availed a loan for a commercial vehicle, which was subsequently seized by the respondents for default in repayment. The petitioner apprehended that the vehicle would be sold without an opportunity to repay in installments. The court found that the sale of the vehicle was already executed and no order to return could be passed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. loan default leading to vehicle seizure. (Para 1) |
| 2. contestation of sale legality. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. confirmation of prior actions taken by respondents. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 06th day of January, 2026 The petitioner, with her husband as guarantor, availed a loan from respondents 1 and 2, for purchasing a commercial vehicle. Later, alleging default in repayment, respondents 1 and 2 approached the Commercial Court, Kollam and secured an interim order permitting seizure of the vehicle and initiation of proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act . On the strength of that order, petitioner’s vehicle was seized. This writ petition is filed voicing an apprehension that respondents 1 and 2 will sell the vehicle without affording the petitioner an opportunity to repay the amount in installments.
2. On the writ petition being taken up for consideration, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner’s vehicle has been sold.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the Commercial Court only permits respondents 1 and 2 to seize the vehicle and hence, the sale is illegal.
4. Insofar as the vehicle has been sold and the 1st respondent being a private entity, this Court cannot pass any order directing return of the vehicle to the petitioner’s possession.
The writ petition is hence closed, without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to resort to other legal remedies available.
Sd/-
