Allahabad High Court
WRIC/6865/2026 of MOHD. SALEEM Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS on 5 May 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 6865 of 2026 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Devendra Vikram Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank. 2. By means of
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 6865 of 2026
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Sri Devendra Vikram Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to respondent no. 4 to release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Vehicle No. U.P. 95 AT 2601.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had taken vehicle loan from the respondent-bank and the vehicle in question was hypothicated, however due to some default in payment of dues towards the EMIs of the vehicle loan advance, the vehicle has been taken away by the respondents.
4. Per contra, it is argued by Sanjay Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner was in default of payment of dues, therefore the respondent-bank had no other option but to get the hypothicated vehicle seized.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the vehicle is not released, he will not be able to pay back the dues and he is ready to pay some lump sum amount towards the dues so that the respondents may reschedule of the vehicle loan and in the meanwhile vehicle may be released so that he may have earning to clear the dues. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Damodar Singh, Devendra Vikram Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek Ahuja, Arpita Tarmali, C.S.C., Sanjay Kumar Gupta Mohd. Saleem .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s)
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank does not have any objection, in the event, petitioner deposits Rs. 15,00,000/- within the next 30 days time.
7. In view of the above, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions :
(i) The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking to the respondent no. 4 within 10 days from today that he would be paying Rs. 15,00,000/- within 30 days from today i.e. on or before 7th June, 2026.
(ii) In the event, the petitioner furnishes such an undertaking, the vehicle of the petitioner shall not be auctioned and shall be retained by the bank and shall be handed over to the petitioner upon deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/- as directed hereinabove.
(iii) After receiving the payment of Rs.15,00,000/- as directed hereinabove, the bank will reschedule the vehicle loan to regularize the EMI and will furnish statement of account to the petitioner for payment of regular EMIs and the petitioner would be thereafter regularly paying the EMI without any fail.
(iv) In the event, the petitioner continues to pay the EMIs, the respondent- bank will not take any coercive action against the petitioner. However, the petitioner fails to pay the EMIs even after reschedulement, it will remain open for the respondent-bank to proceed in accordance with law and no second writ petition shall be entertained in the matter nor any time extension application shall be entertained. May 6, 2026 Pratima WRIC No. 6865 of 2026 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad