LexStreak
Read free →
Supreme Court of India· 16 September 2026

Can a writ petition be dismissed on the ground of delay alone without examining its merits and any demonstrated prejudice?

HARI DUTTA SHARMA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS
2026 INSC 998
Coram: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Justice Alok Aradhe
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Section 35-A of the Banking Regu…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

A writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay alone without examining its merits and any demonstrated prejudice.

No. A writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay alone without examining its merits and any demonstrated prejudice to the other side. The appellant had lodged a First Information Report on the day of the incident and continued to receive traffic challans for a vehicle the Company claimed to have already sold, a circumstance that called for explanation and ought to have weighed with the High Court before it threw out the petition on delay alone. (¶27)

Headnote

Banking Regulation Act, 1949 — s.35-A — RBI Fair Practices Code — Self-help repossession — Article 14 — Article 21 — Repossession clause — Banking Regulation Act, 1949 — s.35-A — RBI Fair Practices Code — Repossession clause validity — Held: A repossession clause dispensing with notice and leaving possession to the financier's discretion does not conform to the RBI's Guidelines. Such a clause converts a floor of minimum protection into an illusory promise defeasible at the financier's will. (¶24, 25) Self-help repossession — No force, no 'goondas' — Held further: Banks and financial institutions cannot employ 'goondas' to take possession of a hypothecated vehicle by force; seizure can only be effected through lawful means. Breaking open a steering lock at night to seize a vehicle bears every mark of the 'goonda-ism' this Court has condemned. (¶19, 21, 26) Article 14 — Article 21 — Livelihood — Held further: An unauthorised and arbitrary repossession that deprives a person of modest means of his livelihood violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Such a borrower is entitled to compensation for the resulting mental agony and loss of livelihood. (¶30) Writ jurisdiction — Delay — Held further: A writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay alone without examining its merits and any demonstrated prejudice. Appeal allowed with costs; impugned order quashed, sale proceeds ordered refunded with interest and compensation awarded. (¶27, 29, 32, 33)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 27As regards the finding of the High Court that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay, we find that this finding was arrived at without reference to the material on record. The appellant had lodged a First Information Report on the very day of the incident, 09.04.2023, and thereafter filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 08.11.2023, in the bona fide belief that his vehicle had been stolen. He continued, moreover, to receive traffic challans on 18.01.2024, 18.11.2024 and 18.02.2025 in respect of a vehicle the Company claims to have sold as far back as 31.08.2023, a circumstance which, at the very least, called for explanation and ought to have weighed with the High Court. In these circumstances, we are unable to sustain the finding that the writ petition was liable to be thrown out on the ground of delay alone, without an examination of its merits and in the absence of any demonstrated prejudice to the Company.
Acts & Sections
Section 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949Article 14 of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 21 of the Constitution of IndiaSection 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Indian Contract Act, 1872

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of HARI DUTTA SHARMA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Does a repossession clause dispensing with notice and leaving possession to the financier's discretion conform to the RBI's Guidelines?Can banks and financial institutions employ 'goondas' to take possession of a hypothecated vehicle by force?Does an unauthorised and arbitrary repossession that deprives a person of modest means of his livelihood amount to a violation of Articles 14 and 21?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections