IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA and WMP No. 54627 OF 2025 Thiyagarajan.P Residing at No. A28, 2^nd Floor, 86th Street

18^th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 083.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Regional Transport Officer RTO - Chennai South West 47 & 49, Kaliamman Koil Street, Sai Nagar, Virugambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 092.

2. The Manager M/s Yes Bank Private Limited, Having Office at : Yes Bank House Off Western Express Highway Santacruz East, Mumbai 400 055.

Also at :

9th Floor, No 117, Arihant E Park No 1 Lattice Bride Road, Baktavatsalam Nagar, Adyar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 020.

3. The General Manager Reserve Bank of India Regional Office - Chennai No 16, Rajaji Salai, Fort Glacis, Chennai - 600 001.

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus for a direction restraining the 1^st respondent from issuing a fresh Registration Certificate in favour of any third party in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN10 CA 0001 until the dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is resolved and pass orders For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Arvind Athithan For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.R. Sreedhar for R2 Ms.B.Rajeswari of M/s.Aiyar & Dolia for R3

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed to direct the first respondent not to issue fresh registration certificate in favour of a third party in respect of the vehicle bearing registration No TN10 CA 0001, until the dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent-Bank is resolved.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased a vehicle Land Rover Velar bearing registration No. TN10 CA 0001, under a loan agreement with the third respondent-Bank. The total loan amount sanctioned by the Bank towards purchase of the vehicle was Rs.50,00,000/- with a repayment tenure of 6 years commencing from July 31, 2021 and the monthly EMI is Rs.1,06,286/-. The EMI was to be deducted from the account of the petitioner on the 2^nd day of every English calendar month. The petitioner had been remitting the EMIs with due diligence from 02.09.2021 to 02.09.2025. However, by inadvertence there was a lapse on his part in making the EMI dues for September 2025 and October 2025, totalling to Rs.2,12,572/-. The second respondent, without issuing proper notice or demand, had seized the vehicle forcibly in November 2025, through recovery agents and this was reported to RBI, the third respondent herein, by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner would submit that immediately after seizure, he had remitted the defaulted EMIs and also the seizure charges. However, the second respondent had refused to return the vehicle and claiming unilateral termination of the loan agreement and demanding payment of the entire remaining loan amount in one lump sum, which is contrary to the contractual tenure.

4. The petitioner apprehends that the second respondent-Bank may apply before the Regional Transport Officer, the first respondent for cancellation of the existing registration certificate standing in the name of the petitioner and seek issuance of a fresh registration certificate either in its name or in the name of a third party. The petitioner has submitted a representation in this regard to the first respondent as well as to the third respondent on 27.11.2025, not to issue a fresh registration certificate for the vehicle bearing No.TN10 CA 0001, however, his request has not been processed till date. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. The petitioner's plea is that as per Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cancellation of registration certificate of a vehicle or seizing of a vehicle, requires mandatory notice to the registered owner, however, the second respondent without following the mandates of Motor Vehicle Act, had proceeded to seize the vehicle.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the