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

B.N.P.SINGH, P.D.SHENOY
Tata Motors Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Indrasen Choubey – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajesh Chadha, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Lav Kumar Agarwal, Advocate.

ORDER

Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member—In this case there was a hire-purchase agreement between the complainant and the revision petitioner. It is the case of the complainant that his vehicle was seized and auctioned without intimation to him. Therefore, he had filed a complaint seeking relief from the District Forum.

2. In its written version the petitioner had submitted that the said vehicle was seized from the possession of the Complainant Indrasen Chaubey and it was informed to the P.S. Jaitpura, Varanasi accordingly on 18..02,1999. Therefore, there was no question of information on 24.02.1999 and 05.04.1999 and it was auctioned on 23.04.1999. The Complainant did not pay any instalment till then and filed the Complaint with altogether false and frivolous facts as such it is liable to be rejected. It is clear from the terms and conditions of the agreement that the vehicle shall be seized in case the purchaser fails to deposit even one instalment or so within the scheduled time and the vehicle shall be auctioned in case the instalment is not paid even on that occasion as it has happened in this case. Hence the petition is liable to be rejected.

3. District Forum had dismissed the complain






























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