1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1209/2011 (SUNIL RAMESHCHANDRA RATHI VERSUS BANK OF MAHARASHTRA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri H.R. Gadhia, counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.N. Phadke, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 4 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent-Bank to release the truck and hand over the same to the petitioner. A declaration is sought by the petitioner that the seizure of the truck by the respondent- Bank is illegal and, hence, the petitioner may be granted compensation of Rupees One Lac. A peculiar prayer is also made for a direction to the respondent-Bank not to charge any interest on the loan availed by the petitioner from 18.02.2011 till the date of handing over of the possession of the truck. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a borrower and was granted a loan of Rs.6,20,000/- on 05.03.2003 by the respondent-Bank for the purchase of a Brand-New Tata Truck. An agreement was executed between the parties and it is the case of the respondent-Bank that on the basis of the terms of the contract in the Agreement of Hypothecation, a notice was issued to the petitioner that the 2 petitioner should deposit the outstanding loan with interest within a period of eight days from 27.01.2011, failing which the respondent-Bank may seize the vehicle as per the terms of the contract. It appears, since the amount was not repaid by the petitioner, the truck has been seized. The reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing a civil suit. The matter giving rise to this writ petition is based on the Terms & Conditions of a contract executed between the parties. Hence, we decline to entertain this writ petition. The judgment reported in AIR 2007 SC 1349 (Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. Versus Prakash Kaur & others) and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE APTE