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?

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)