Madras High Court
R.Jothilakshmi vs The Branch Manager on 29 October, 2009
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29/10/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition (MD) No.10657 of 2009 R.Jothilakshmi .. Petitioner Vs The Branch Manager ICICI Bank Retail Asset Product Division 21,22,23 North Chitirai Street Madurai .. Respondent Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to return the petitioner's Skoda Octavia car bearing Registration No.TN.33, AY 4699 in accordance with law. !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Subash Babu ^For Respondent ... Mr.Pala Ramasamy Special Government Pleader :ORDER
The petitioner has stated that he had purchased a Skoda Octavia vehicle, bearing registration No.TN 33 AY 4699, with the necessary finance made available by the respondent Bank. The petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- from the respondent, based on the loan agreement, on 1.4.2007. The petitioner was to pay a sum of Rs.16,600/-, as the monthly installment, on the first day of every month. The petitioner had been paying the monthly installments, regularly, upto the month of August, 2009. Thereafter, due to downtrend in his business, the petitioner could not pay the monthly installments, regularly, as per the loan agreement. While so, the respondent had taken away the vehicle, on 26.9.2009, by force, with the help of some 'Goondas', in spite of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, as well as by this Court, deprecating the practice of repossession by the use of force. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Mr.Pala Ramasamy, The learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent Bank had submitted that he had no serious objection for the release of the vehicle in question. However, he had submitted that the vehicle could be released, if the petitioner pays the amount, that would be due for two future installments, in addition to the sum of Rs.1,38,619/-, which is the amount outstanding, as on 26.10.2009, for non payment of 7 installments by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner is to submit an affidavit to the respondent stating that he would not default in payment of the future installments till the entire liability is cleared, as per the loan agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent, on 1.4.2007. The petitioner is also to state in his affidavit that it would be open to the respondent to repossess the vehicle on the failure of the petitioner in fulfilling the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner would be agreeable to comply with the requirements, as stated by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, the respondent is directed to release the Skoda Octavia car bearing Registration No.TN.33, AY 4699 on the petitioner fulfilling the conditions stipulated by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.
13. However, before parting with the matter, this Court finds it appropriate to record its concern that serious allegations are being levelled against several financial institutions for engaging musclemen and 'Goondas' as collection agents and using force through unpalatable means to threaten and embarrass the borrowers compelling them to repay the loans borrowed by them. In spite of the such practices having been deprecated by the Apex Court in several of its decisions the unethical and illegal practice is being carried on with impunity. Therefore, stringent action should be taken by the authorities concerned against those financial institutions, which are employing such unlawful methods and means to recover the loans contrary to the concern expressed by the Apex Court against such practices, as well as against such agents employed by the financial institutions. Such unlawful practices should be condemned, in no uncertain terms, to establish and reiterate the position that rule of law should prevail both in private and public dealings by the institutions concerned.
lan To:
The Branch Manager ICICI Bank Retail Asset Product Division 21,22,23 North Chitirai Street Madurai