Back
High Court Of Delhi
VIKAS INVESTMENT COMPANY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) 3003 of 1999
Decided On : 11/25/1999
HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT - RELEASE OF VEHICLE - SECTION 451 CR. P. C. - SECTION 482 CR. P. C. - Where the hirer defaults in payment of instalments, the financier is entitled to interim custody of the seized vehicle. The court can set aside the order declining to release the vehicle in favor of the financier under Section 482 Cr. P. C. if it is in the nature of abuse of process of court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a finance company, filed a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. seeking the release of a vehicle that was seized by the police. The vehicle was given on hire purchase to one Pritam Singh, who had defaulted on the payments. The petitioner claimed that it was the owner of the vehicle and that it was entitled to its release.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was the owner of the vehicle and that Pritam Singh had defaulted on the payments. The court also found that the police had no objection to the release of the vehicle to the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to the release of the vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the release of the vehicle because it was the owner of the vehicle and Pritam Singh had defaulted on the payments. The court also held that the police had no objection to the release of the vehicle.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and set aside the order declining to release the vehicle. The court also directed the petitioner to furnish an indemnity bond in the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs to the satisfaction of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.
( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. filed by M/s. Vikas Investment Company, petitioner, seeks setting aside of the order dated 16th September 1999 passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate and also the release of vehicle bearing registration No. DL IGA-0318 on superdari in its favour.
( 2 ) IT is alleged that the petitioner carries on business of finance of vehicles on hire purchase and is the owner of vehicle bearing registration No. DL IGA 0318, a 1992 Model Tata (Tanker ). This vehicle was given on hire purchase to Pritam Singh s/o Mahender Singh under an agreement dated 9th September 1996. Under that hire purchase agreement the hirer had undertaken to pay the amount of Rs. 2,68,000. 00 at the rate of Rs. 11,200. 00 per month in 24 instalments. The last instalment being in the sum of Rs. 10,400. 00. It is further alleged that one Shardha Nand Tyagi lodged FIR No. 1070/98 with PS Mangolpuri that said Pritam Singh had carried his stock of oil in said tanker which was found abandoned after misappropriating the stock of oil. Said vehicle was initially parked at PS Shivani in District Bhiwani (Haryana) but was brought in October 1998 to PS Mangolpuri, Delhi. It is also alleged that after waiting for a considerable time an application for release of said vehicle on superdari was filed by the petitioner on 28th August 1999 on which report was called from PS Mangolpuri by the Metropolitan Magistrate. HC Jai Prakash reported to the M. M. that said Pritam Singh has been declared proclaimed offender and the police have no objection if the vehicle is given on superdari to the petitioner. Only 10 instalments have been paid by now. Despite that the application of the petitioner was dismissed by the impugned order dated 16th September 1999. Alongwith the petition photostat copies of the agreement dated 9th September 1996 entered into in between the petitioner and aforesaid Pritam Singh, hirer, registration certificate issued by the Motor Licencing Officer, Delhi and statement of account pertaining to hirer have been filed.
( 3 ) IT was urged by Sh. B. T. Singh appearing for the petitioner that the vehicle in question is lying idle for more than a year at PS Mangolpuri and there are chances of its being spoiled if the same is kept idle further. According to him under hire purchase agreement dated 9th September 1996 the petitioner continues to be the owner of vehicle and the impugned order declining to release the vehicle in favour of petitioner is legally erroneous. Strong reliance was placed on the decision in M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri R. Khaishiulla Khan and others, 1993 Cri. L. J. 1069.
( 4 ) HIRE purchase agreement dated 9th September 1996 (photostat copy at pages 10 to 13 of the paper book) confirms the averments made in petition that the petitioner company is the owner of said vehicle and the same was given on hire purchase to said Pritam Singh who had undertaken to repay the total amount of hire of Rs. 2,68,000. 00 in the manner set out in Second Schedule appended to that agreement. In the certificate of registration pertaining to said vehicle at page 15 name of the petitioner company is mentioned against the column of HP/lease agreement with. In the statement of account at page 14 a sum of Rs. 1,20,303. 00 is shown as due from said Pritam Singh. At the time of hearing in the case police file in respect of FIR 1070/98 under Section 407 Indian Penal Code PS Mangolpuri was retained which, interalia, goes to show that on the basis of complaint made by Sharadhanand Tyagi said case was registered against above said Pritam Singh and as he had been absconding he has been declared proclaimed offender.
( 5 ) IN the decision in M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. , (supra) release of vehicle was claimed both by the hirer and the financier and after noticing the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, Contract Act and the decisions cited, a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court held that
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
