SAKTHI FINANCE LTD Vs. VELAYUDHAN
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SAKTHI FINANCE LTD
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) O.S.492/2003 was filed in the Munsiff's Court - II, Kozhikode by the respondent for a declaration that he is not liable to pay any amount to the revision petitioners to discharge the loan availed on the security of vehicle KL/13/B-8487 and for a mandatory injunction to direct the revision petitioners to return the vehicle. I.A.2229/2003 was filed by the respondent for a temporary mandatory injunction to direct the revision petitioners to return the above vehicle. The above application for temporary mandatory injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff. Respondent filed C.M.A.83/2003 in the Court of the District Judge, Kozhikode and the learned I Additional District Judge disposed of the above appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Munsiff and granting interim mandatory injunction directing the petitioners to return the vehicle to the respondent. The petitioners, who are the defendants in the above suit, have filed this revision challenging the judgment in civil miscellaneous appeal by which interim mandatory inunction was granted.
(2.) According to the respondent, he availed himself a loan of Rs.4.12 lakh as per agreement dated 2.10.1999 from the petitioners for the purchase of a vehicle and he remitted an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- in 40 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.13,750/-. The allegation in the plaint is that on 31.3.2003 respondent gave to the petitioners a cheque which was encashed by them on 30.4.2003. The respondent would allege that since nobody turned up for collecting the amount due in the month of April, 2003 he approached the third petitioner and expressed his readiness to settle the account and as instructed by the third petitioner, he again approached him on 15.5.2003. When the respondent again approached the third petitioner he was told that an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was due from him in the loan transaction. Then the respondent demanded a copy of the statement of accounts in writing and the third petitioner directed the respondent to come and collect the copy of statement of accounts on 19.5.2003. On 17.5.2003 the second petitioner seized the vehicle from the Bus Stand, Kozhikode. The respondent alleges that the vehicle is covered by a pucca permit in Tellicherry-Kozhikode route and that motor vehicle tax and insurance premium had already been paid. The case of the respondent is that in case the vehicle is kept by the second petitioner respondent may not be able to conduct the bus service between Tellicherry and Kozhikode and in that event the route permit would be cancelled. It is stated that there are five employees attached to the bus and they had already lost the job.
(3.) Petitioners 2 and 3 filed a joint objection to the petition for temporary mandatory injunction and the contention raised is that one Sayed made a request to the first petitioner to grant hire purchase facility for hiring a vehicle Tata bus and accordingly an agreement was executed on 12.1.1996. It is also stated that the first petitioner purchased the vehicle from Sakthi Automobiles as per invoice dated 21.12.1995 and let the vehicle to the above said Sayed. The total hire amount payable by Sayed was Rs.6,98,400/-. As per the agreement, the hirer was liable to pay the hire amount by way of 47 monthly instalments commencing from 12.3.1996 and ending on 12.1.2000 and the vehicle was registered in the name of Sayed and endorsement was made in the registration certificate regarding the hire purchase agreement. Petitioners 2 and 3 would contend that the respondent also became the hirer of the vehicle when Sayed executed an assignment in favour of him with the permission of the first petitioner. It is contended that the respondent is a defaulter and he had only paid Rs.2,73,600/- towards 18 monthly instalments. According to the petitioners, if the respondent was ready to pay an amount of Rs.2,63,924.44 they were prepared to close the account and issue hire purchase termination letter and also to release the vehicle. Petitioners 2 and 3 also contended that repossession of the vehicle by the first petitioner Company was legal and in accordance with the hire purchase agreement and that the first petitioner is the real owner of the vehicle.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.