Authority: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla

Order Date: 16 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Pradeep Kumar; Respondents – State Bank of India (SBI) and others, including the purchaser in the e‑auction (respondent No.4).
  • Vehicle: Registration No. HP01B‑6363, part of six vehicles purchased by the petitioner under hire‑purchase agreements with SBI.
  • Loan Details: The loan for the subject vehicle was taken in February 2019. The petitioner defaulted on repayments; SBI subsequently took possession of four vehicles, including HP01B‑6363.
  • Auction: SBI issued a 30‑day notice on 15‑Jan‑2025 and sold the vehicle to respondent No.4 in an e‑auction on 25‑Feb‑2025.
  • Earlier Proceedings:
  • Securitization Application No.378/2024 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal‑I, Chandigarh, resulted in an order dated 07‑Sep‑2024 restraining SBI from auctioning three vehicles, provided the petitioner paid ₹5,00,000 on 07‑Sep‑2024, another ₹5,00,000 on 12‑Sep‑2024 and a further ₹5,00,000 on or before 27‑Sep‑2024.
  • The petitioner failed to honour these commitments and withdrew the securitization application on 19‑Feb‑2025.
  • Civil Suit No.38/2025 was filed on 18‑Feb‑2025 to restrain the auction; the suit was withdrawn by the petitioner on 13‑Sep‑2025 without obtaining any interim relief.
  • Writ Petition: Filed on 17‑Mar‑2025 seeking a declaration that the auction was illegal, restoration of possession, and an order restraining any transfer of ownership.
  • Legal Reasoning: The court cited precedents (Anup Armah v. Bhola Nath Sharma, 2013 1 SCC 400; Suryapal Singh v. Siddha Vinayak Motors) establishing that under a hire‑purchase agreement, the financier (SBI) retains ownership and the borrower is merely a bailee/trustee. Consequently, the bank’s repossession and auction of the vehicle are lawful.
  • Observations: The petitioner pursued multiple, successive proceedings (securitization application, civil suit, writ petition) but failed to comply with earlier commitments and did not demonstrate any illegality in SBI’s auction process.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition was dismissed in its entirety. No interference with the auction or ownership transfer was ordered. Any pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.

Topics: Vehicle Auction, Hire‑Purchase Law