This suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent/mandatory injunction and damages. The plaintiff had taken auto loans from the defendant bank for finance of the four vehicles viz. HR-55-6574, HR-55-7598, HR-55-7599 & HR-55-7597 between 26.12.2000 and 7.2.2001.

The Equated Monthly Installment (EMI) of Rs.16512/- was fixed for the first vehicle purchased i.e. vehicle no. HR-55-6574 and EMIs for rest of the three vehicles was Rs.18356/- each. It is plaintiff’s own case that due to serious financial troubles plaintiff had moved Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR).

Though the plaintiff has not given the date of moving the Board but the documents filed shows that the plaintiff had moved the Board in the beginning of year 2000. Plaintiff company was declared a sick industrial company by BIFR vide its order dated 25.10.2002. Plaintiff claimed that despite financial constraint, plaintiff tried its best to pay EMIs on time. However, the documents show that plaintiff did not pay EMIs of any of the vehicles after March’ 03 and defaulted in payment of EMIs.

Plaintiff claims that plaintiff was in negotiations with the Bank and had appraised the bank of its financial difficulties and wanted to clear EMIs and settle the accounts but the defendant bank failed to settle the accounts with the plaintiff. This pleading is a very strange pleading because if plaintiff wanted to pay the EMIs nobody could have stopped plaintiff from paying EMIs. The plaintiff had issued Post Dated Cheques (PDCs).

The bank was putting these PDCs for encashment on the due date and these cheques were getting dishonoured, how the plaintiff wanted to settle the account has not been stated by the plaintiff in the plaint. In any case, according to the plaintiff defendant bank took forcible possession of one of the vehicles viz. Toyota Qualis Car No. HR-55-7598 from Mr. Pawan Mehra, younger brother of Chand Mehra (Director of the plaintiff company) on 9.10.2003 at 9.00 a.m. through some unlawful elements.

Mr. Pawan Mehra was dragged out of the car and he was not allowed to remove his personal belongings from the car including jewellery products worth Rs.7 lac and he was forced to sign a blank vehicle surrender form. This form was later on filled up by the agents of the defendant and a noting was made that no cash and no valuable articles were lying in the car. The plaintiff company got shocked due to this act of the defendant bank. Mr. Pawan Mehra, not being a Director of Plaintiff Company had no authority to handover the vehicle or to sign vehicle surrender certificate. It is also stated that plaintiff being a sick company under SICA, the defendant could not have taken a coercive action against plaintiff without obtaining permission from BIFR.

On the same day (day of possession) plaintiff’s Director Chand Mehra wrote a letter to defendant bank requesting it to handover the car back with personal belongings and the articles of the company to the plaintiff. The defendant assured that they would sort out the matter amicably. However, defendant bank vide letter dated 11.10.2003 informed the plaintiff that they had repossessed the said vehicle saying that it had been voluntarily surrendered by Mr. Pawan Mehra and they would sell the same in case of failure of the plaintiff to clear the dues within 07 days of receipt of letter.

The plaintiff replied this letter on 14.10.2003 protesting that the vehicle was not voluntarily surrendered and Mr. Pawan Mehra was not a Director in the plaintiff company and had no authority to surrender the vehicle. It was also informed that plaintiff was a sick industrial company and the vehicle was carrying belongings of the plaintiff i.e. jewellery worth about Rs.7 lac.

The defendant wrote letter dated 15.10.2003 to the plaintiff agreeing for an amicable settlement and referred to the two demand notices issued to the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff took the stand that notices were never r