HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2032 of 2023

02nd April, 2026 Mohan Lal ……..Petitioner Versus Reserve Bank of India and others ……..Respondents With Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2500 of 2023 Rajendra Singh ……..Petitioner Versus Reserve Bank of India and others ……..Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Altaf Hussain, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Aakib Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

These two writ petitions, namely Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2032 of 2023 (Mohan Lal vs. Reserve Bank of India & others) and Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2500 of 2023 (Rajendra Singh vs. Reserve Bank of India & others), have been heard together as they involve substantially similar questions of law relating to the legality of repossession of financed vehicles by a Non-Banking Financial Company and the maintainability of writ petitions in such matters. Though the factual matrix in both petitions is not identical in all respects, the core issues being common, both petitions are being decided by this common judgment, while noticing their individual facts separately.

2. In Writ Petition (M/S) No.2032 of 2023, the petitioner-Mohan Lal, a Transporter by profession, is the registered owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No. UP-26-6199, which was financed by respondent no.3– Indostar Capital Finance Limited. The respondent sanctioned a loan of Rs.31,40,848/- for purchase of the said vehicle, which was repayable in 66 equated monthly instalments. As per the petitioner, he has already paid a sum of Rs.14,66,850/- towards the loan amount. It is the case of the petitioner that only an amount of Rs.1,84,030/- remained due as on 22.06.2023, however, an additional sum of Rs.47,994/- has been arbitrarily added by the respondent without justification. On 25.06.2023, while the vehicle was on a commercial consignment, it is alleged that recovery agents of the respondent forcibly intercepted the vehicle, removed the driver, and repossessed the same without following due process of law. Despite subsequent representations and issuance of a legal notice, the vehicle was not returned.

3. In Writ Petition (M/S) No.2500 of 2023, the petitioner-Rajendra Singh, who is also engaged in the business of transportation, is the registered owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration no. UK-06-CA-8813. The said vehicle was financed by respondent no.3 through a loan of Rs.15,00,000/-, repayable in 44 monthly installments. The petitioner asserts that he has already paid a sum of Rs.18,64,891/-, which is more than the principal loan amount. According to the petitioner, only an amount of Rs.1,77,359/- remained due as on 28.08.2023, however, an additional sum of Rs.60,067/- has been added without justification. The petitioner further alleges that the respondent, through its recovery agents, has forcibly repossessed or attempted to repossess the vehicle in violation of law and binding guidelines. It is also the case of the petitioner that such action has severely affected his livelihood.

4. Both the petitions, thus, arise out of loan transactions entered into between the petitioners and respondent no.3, wherein disputes have arisen regarding the outstanding amounts as well as the legality of the action taken by the respondent in repossessing the vehicles allegedly through coercive means.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the action of the respondent in forcibly repossessing the vehicles is wholly illegal and contrary to the binding guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India regulating recovery practices of banks and financial institutions. It is contended that such guidelines have statutory force and are binding on Non-Banking Financial Companies, and any violation thereof renders the action arbitrary an