- (1.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is the hirer of the vehicle which was seized by the finance company due to non-payment of outstanding instalments. Mr. Das appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that by use of force the financier had taken possession of the vehicle in question. A complaint with regard thereto has been lodged before the concerned police station. He relies on Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kaur & Ors., 2007 AIR(SC) 1349 and Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2004 AIR(Cal) 46 .
(2.) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the finance company submits that the vehicle was taken lawfully possession of without use of any force in terms of hire purchase agreement and such exercise on the part of the financier cannot be countenanced to be contrary to law. It is trite law that relationship between hirer and financier is to be guided by the terms of the contract. Steps taken by the financier to take possession of the vehicle in question upon default by the hirer to pay instalments cannot be said to be a deprivation of property without authority of law. Any allegation as to commission of offence under such circumstances is to be adjudicated in the light of the law declared in K.A. Mathai @ Babu & Anr. Vs. Kora Bibbikutty & Anr., 1996 7 SCC 212 and Charanjit Singh Chadha & Ors. Vs. Sudhir Mehra, 2001 7 SCC 417 . In the said reports it has been unequivocally held that taking of possession of vehicle by the financier on failure of the hirer to pay hire instalments may amount to a crime. Such condition in the agreement cannot be said to be contrary to law and such issues are not amenable to writ jurisdiction as held in Managing Director, Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd. versus Jagmander Singh and Another, 2006 2 SCC 598 (Para-9). Allegations of improper or forcible seizure may be agitated before appropriate forum by way of private complainant or in a suit for damages in accordance with law. I do not find any contrary proposition of law laid down in AIR 2007 SC 1349 from the ratios enunciated in the aforesaid reports. Similarly, I am of the opinion that no inspiration may be drawn from AIR 2004 Cal 46 to come to a finding that the action of the financier in terms of contract constitutes an offence in law. It is, therefore, open to the parties to adjudicate their disputes under the ordinary law of the land and invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction in this regard in unwarranted. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy, if applied for, be given to the parties subject to all requisite formalities.;