Authority: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
Order Date: 14-Oct-2026
Case Overview
- Petitioner: Subhendu @ Subhandu Kumar Samal, represented by Adv. Ms. Sarada Dash.
- Opposite parties: Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Ltd., Kendujhar and another, represented by Adv. Mr. Avijit Patnaik.
- The petition challenges the seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle by the finance company for non‑payment of three EMIs out of a total of fourteen.
- Petitioner claims he paid eleven installments, the vehicle is his sole livelihood, and the finance company did not follow RBI‑issued guidelines while taking possession.
- Finance company contends the petitioner is contractually obliged to pay EMIs and that seizure was justified after three EMIs remained unpaid as of 9‑Sep‑2026.
- The court initially allowed the Banking Ombudsman, RBI, Bhubaneswar to be impleaded (I.A. No.19233 of 2026) but later held that no notice to the Ombudsman was required, keeping the dispute between petitioner and the finance company.
Final Outcome
- The writ petition is disposed of with an order directing Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Ltd. to release the seized vehicle to the petitioner upon receipt of a deposit of Rs 3,00,000 (Three Lakhs only) within ten days from the order date.
- The petitioner may file an application for restructuring of the loan on the date of deposit; the finance company must consider it in accordance with law.
- The court reiterated that the finance institution must adhere to RBI guidelines on vehicle possession, as emphasized by the Supreme Court in Hari Dutta Sharma vs. State of U.P. & Others (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1905).
Topics: Vehicle Repossession, Banking Regulation, RBI Guidelines