HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2039 of 2023 Mohan Lal ...Petitioner Versus Reserve Bank of India and others ….Respondents Present: Mr. Aakib Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Akshay Latwal, Advocates for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral) Instant petition has been filed for directions to the respondents that they should not forcibly recover the vehicle bearing Registration No. UP 26 T 9899 (“the vehicle”) 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had taken a loan from the respondent no.3 through the respondent no.2 branch for purchasing a vehicle. He had paid instalments, but some of the instalments could not be paid. Now, the respondent no.3 is in the mode of forcibly taking possession over the vehicle. 4. As soon as the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 would submit that 2 the respondent nos. 2 & 3 are not taking forcible possession of the vehicle. The matter was referred for arbitration and an award has already been passed. Now, the respondent nos. 2 & 3 will only proceed in accordance with the award. There is no question of taking the possession of the vehicle forcibly. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 would submit that after the interim order was passed by this Court on 27.07.2023, the petitioner had stopped paying the instalments. 5. The Court takes on record the statement given by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petition may be disposed of, as the petitioner has remedy to challenge the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. 7. The petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent nos. 2 & 3 that they should not take forcible possession of the vehicle in question except in accordance with law. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 19.03.2025 Jitendra