IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No :22589 of 2011 Between: Coramandal Infra Pvt. Ltd.,(formerly known as Coramandal Prestcrete Pvt.Ltd), Plot No.120, Flat No.104, GK classic, Srinagar colony, Hyderabad, represented by its Managing Director, Mr.L.V.Sunil, S/o L.V.Subba Reddy, Hyderabad. . .Petitioner And 1.The Reserve Bank of India, Saifabad, Hyderabad, represented by its Regional Director and another. .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 22589 of 2011 ORDER: Petitioner, who is a borrower from the 2nd respondent, has availed a loan and agreed to pay equated monthly instalments regularly without any default. It appears that he issued 23 cheques covering the payment of EMIs and as they were dishonoured, the vehicles of the petitioner were seized, which gave rise to questioning the seizure by way of filing of the present writ petition. 2. This Court by order dated 10.08.2011, while issuing notice before admission, granted conditional interim direction that the petitioner should deposit Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) on or before 31.08.2011 and on such deposit the seized vehicles/machinery were directed to be released by the 2nd respondent for the custody of the petitioner. The petitioner was also directed to deposit monthly instalments on or before the end of the every succeeding month till the liability is liquidated. 3. It is represented by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has complied with the deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- and continuing payment of monthly instalments thereafter and that the seized vehicles/machinery have since been released by the 2nd respondent. 4. While the 2nd respondent questions the maintainability of the writ petition in view of the 2nd respondent being a scheduled private bank, the said question need not be gone into in the present writ petition in view of the fact that the petitioner has complied with the condition as to deposit and the transaction between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is now governed by the terms and conditions of the loan. The intervention of this Court, therefore, is not called for. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR 23rd November 2011 Gsn.