ARIJIT PASAYAT, S.H.KAPADIA
ORIX AUTO FINANCE (INDIA) LTD. – Appellant
Versus
JAGMANDER SINGH – Respondent
JUDGMENT
ARUIT PASAYAT, J. - Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the civil revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "the Code").
3. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Under a hire - purchase agreement executed between the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the financier") and Respondent I (hereinafter referred to as "hirer") possession of Truck No. HR 46 C 3689 was handed over to the hirer subject to compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. As per the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement, the t hirer was to repay the total financed amount of Rs 9,24,000 in 33 monthly instalments of Rs 28,000 each. As per the agreement the first instalment was payable on 25 - 10 - 2000 and the last instalment was payable on 25 - 6 - 2003. In case of default in making payment of the monthly instalment the hirer was liable to pay delay charges. Clause 10 of the agreement which is relevant for the purpose of this appeal reads as follows:
"10. In case the hirer shall during the continuance of this agreement do or su
None of the cases provided in the list have been identified as overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as "bad law." All entries consistently cite *Orix Auto Finance (India) Limited v. Jagmander Singh and Another (2006) 2 SCC 598* as a valid precedent regarding public policy and repossession agreements.
**Sundaram Finance Limited (M/s.) and Another v. T. Thankam - 2015 Supreme(Online)(SC) 338**: Classified as "Followed/Applied." The text explicitly states that this Court "affirms" the validity of financing agreements under public policy, provided they are not unconscionable, citing *Orix Auto Finance*. **Sundaram Finance Limited VS T. Thankam - 2015 2 Supreme 66**: Classified as "Followed/Applied." The entry references the *Orix Auto Finance* ruling regarding public policy as the governing standard for the analysis of financing agreements. **Sundaram Finance Limited (M/s.) and Another v. T. Thankam - 2015 Supreme(Online)(SC) 588**: Classified as "Followed/Applied." The text notes that agreements are "not against public policy unless unconscionable," relying on the precedent set in *Orix Auto Finance*. **Sailesh Vatsa VS State of Biharn - 2015 0 Supreme(Pat) 456**: Classified as "Followed/Applied." The language indicates that the court is drawing "observations" directly from the *Orix Auto Finance* case to inform its current reasoning regarding financiers. **Gursharan Singh VS State of Punjab - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 3055**: Classified as "Followed/Applied." This case lists *Orix Auto Finance* alongside other precedents (such as *Bhola Nath Sharma* and *K.A. Mathai*) to establish the legal framework relevant to the facts of the current case.
None. The judicial treatment across all provided snippets is consistently uniform: *Orix Auto Finance (India) Limited v. Jagmander Singh and Another* is being cited as a valid and applicable precedent concerning the legality of repossession clauses and public policy. There are no indicators of conflict, criticism, or departure from this precedent in the provided text.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.