The case highlights important principles on vehicle repossession due process Uttarakhand High Court ICICI Bank. The Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital quashed the repossession of a financed commercial vehicle and ordered its return to the borrower. Justice Pankaj Purohit delivered the judgment on 27 April 2026 in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 481 of 2025. The court decided the case against ICICI Bank Limited and others.
The dispute arose from a loan of ₹17,60,000. ICICI Bank sanctioned it in 2019. The borrower purchased a commercial vehicle bearing registration number UP25DT7817. The loan required repayment in 67 monthly instalments.
Background of the dispute
The petitioner, Savitri Devi, claimed she had settled the loan account. She also stated that no dues remained. The bank disagreed with this claim. It said the account turned irregular due to default.
Recovery agents allegedly seized the vehicle on 11 October 2024. The petitioner challenged this action. She argued that the repossession violated the law. She also sought restoration of possession through the writ petition.
Arguments from both sides
The petitioner argued that the bank did not issue any notice under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. She said the bank did not follow due process. She also stated that the vehicle served as her primary source of livelihood. She claimed the repossession violated Article 300A of the Constitution.
The respondents raised a preliminary objection. They said the dispute arose from a loan contract. They also said an alternative remedy existed. On merits, they claimed the borrower defaulted. They further argued that third parties paid ₹7,45,109 on 30 April 2024. They said the loan then stood assigned or subrogated.
The respondents justified the repossession. They said they acted under contractual terms.
Court’s findings
The High Court examined whether writ jurisdiction applied. It noted that contractual disputes usually fall outside writ jurisdiction. However, it also said exceptions exist. Courts can intervene when actions appear arbitrary or illegal.
The Court relied on Supreme Court rulings, including ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur and Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. v. S. Vijayalaxmi. It reiterated that banks cannot use coercive recovery methods. It also stated that recovery agents cannot repossess vehicles unlawfully.
The Court found no proof of proper notice. It also found no evidence of compliance with legal safeguards. The Court held that authorities must follow due process before repossession.
It stressed that contractual terms cannot override statutory protections. It also stated that deprivation of property without due process violates Article 300A.
The judgment also reinforces vehicle repossession due process Uttarakhand High Court ICICI Bank requirements before any seizure action.
Final order
The High Court set aside the repossession. It ordered the respondents to restore the vehicle to the petitioner immediately if already taken. The Court also allowed the bank to recover dues, if any, but only through lawful procedures and appropriate legal forums.
