SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(Del) 203

H.L.ANAND
GURMUKH SINGH – Appellant
Versus
INDERPRASTH FINANCE COMPANY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D.R.THAKUR, K.L.ARYA, P.N.Sethi, R.L.AGARWAL, Y.P.NARULLA

H. L. Anand

( 1 ) BY these petitions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners who are plaintiffs in different suits filed by them against a financing Company, respondent in the present petitions, challenge an order of the First Appellate Court by which the petitioner s applications, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to restrain the financing company from seizing the vehicles in dispute, were dismissed.

( 2 ). It appears that the financing company concerned had financed to the extent of different amounts and on different dates, the purchase by the petitioners of different motor vehicles under identical arrangements which purport to be and have the appearance of hire purchase agreement. It is the case of the financing company that, in terms of the hire purchase agreements in question, the hirers were under an obligation to pay a monthly instalment of a specified amount with the option to purchase the property after a specified amount had been paid to the financing company. It is the further case of the financing company that in terms of the agreements, if the petitioners made default in the payment of any instalment, the financing co

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top