CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. AZHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, namely, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company and its Manager, are the respondents in W.P.(C)No.9036 of 2026, a writ petition filed by the respondent herein-petitioner, who availed a vehicle loan for an amount of Rs.10,83,667.00 from the appellants for purchasing a goods carriage bearing registration No.KL-41/W-1042. In the writ petition filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 pre-sale letter dtd. 11/2/2026 issued by the respondents, wherein it is stated that possession of the vehicle was taken on 10/2/2026, on account of the default committed by the petitioner under the loan agreement; a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore possession of vehicle bearing registration No.KL-41/W-1042 to the petitioner; a direction to the respondents to consider the payments already made by the petitioner and to regularise the loan account; and an interim order restraining the respondents from selling or encumbering the vehicle pending disposal of the writ petition.

(2.) W.P.(C)No.9036 of 2026 filed by the petitioner on 6/3/2026, to quash Ext.P3 pre-sale letter dtd. 11/2/2026 issued by the respondents and seeking other consequential reliefs, which came up for admission before the learned Single Judge on 9/3/2026, was posted to 12/3/2026. In that writ petition, a statement on behalf of the respondents was filed on 11/2/2026, along with I.A.No.1 of 2026, a verified petition, filed under Rule 84 of the Rules of the Kerala High Court, 1971, wherein it is stated that the said statement is filed as directed by the Court. In the said statement, the respondents raised the question of maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Shoba S. v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. [2025 (2) KHC 229], no writ will lie against a Non- Banking Financial Company (NBFC). On 23/3/2026, the respondents filed I.A.No.2 of 2026, seeking an order to consider the maintainability of W.P.(C)No.9036 of 2026 as a preliminary issue. The said interlocutory application is supported by an affidavit sworn to by the Assistant Vice President of the 1st respondent NBFC, reiterating the stand taken in the statement filed on 11/2/2026, on the question of maintainability.

(3.) On 1/6/2026, when W.P.(C)No.9036 of 2026 came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge passed an order, which is under challenge in this writ appeal. In the said order, after referring to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Sobha S. v. Muthoot Finance Limited [2025 (2) KHC 229], and that made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the decision of the Patna High Court in Dhananjay Seth v. Union of India and others [Judgment dtd. 19/5/2023 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3456 of 2021 and connected cases], the learned Single Judge observed that the Court has to consider the questions raised by the parties. By the order dtd. 1/6/2026, a responsible officer of the 1st respondent NBFC was directed to file a counter affidavit disclosing the details stated in paragraph 3 of that order, and the writ petition was posted on 17/6/2026 for the counter affidavit of the respondents. Paragraph 3 of the order dtd. 1/6/2026 of the learned Single Judge reads thus;