M/S. INDIA BULLS Vs. KEDAR DUTT BHATT
LAWS(UTN)-2012-6-78
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on June 28,2012

India Bulls Appellant
VERSUS
Kedar Dutt Bhatt Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition, moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., a prayer has been made to quash the proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 899 of 2008, Kedar Dutt Bhatt, Vs. Manager M/s India bulls and another, and the order of cognizance dated 24.06.2009 passed thereupon by learned Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the private respondent and petitioner M/s India Bulls Company, through its functionaries, entered into an agreement on 16.04.2007 whereby the said company sanctioned a loan of Rs. 3,20,842/ - for purchasing a 'Tata Truck' on hire -purchase basis. Some money was also subscribed by the respondent in purchase of the Truck and he furnished his sureties also for ensuring the repayment of loan. The Equated Monthly Installment (EMI) of Rs. 10,830/ - was settled against the captioned loan. The truck was purchased and given in the custody of the respondent, who got it plied on the road to earn.
(2.) AFTER a couple of months, there was a default in the payment of E.M.I. on the part of the respondent towards company and a total default of Rs. 97,470/ - became due to be paid. So, the company sent a loan recall notice on 30.8.2007 and the respondent, after receiving notice of the company, paid Rs. 40,000/ - and requested the company to defer the recovery proceedings against him as there was a downfall in the transport business at the relevant time but the company did not pay any heed and sent its hired muscleman and, accordingly, the vehicle was re -possessed by the company on 30.1.2008. After having the vehicle re -possessed, the company sent a Pre -Sale Notice on 2.2.2008 asking the respondent to settle the scores. But since the respondent could not satisfy the demand of the company, the truck was after all sold and the company recovered its dues from the sale proceeds.
(3.) THE respondent filed a consumer complaint case no. 77 of 2009 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nainital but the said complaint was dismissed by the Forum by observing that since the vehicle was delivered by the financer under the hire purchase agreement, thus, the same was not covered under the Consumer Protection Act.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.