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

1985 Supreme(Ker) 325

PAREED PILLAY
HAMEED – Appellant
Versus
JAYABHARAT CREDIT & INVESTMENT LTD. – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. Revision petitioner is the petitioner-plaintiff in I.A. 4117/85 in O. S.1017/85 of the II Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. The suit has been filed for declaration that defendants 1 to 3 have no right, title or authority to take possession of the bus bearing Registration No. K. E. E. 4998 from the plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining them from taking possession of the bus from him.

2. From the 4th defendant, plaintiff purchased the bus over which the former had entered into hire purchase agreement with the first defendant. According to the plaintiff, the principal amount due from the 4th defendant to the 1st defendant was Rs. 1,84,982.40. Plaintiff purchased the bus on 3rd May 1983 undertaking to pay the amount due to the 1st defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that Rs. 2,30,784 has been paid towards the loan and the balance amount due from him to the 1st defendant is only Rs. 64,630. Contention of the plaintiff is that the transaction between defendants 1 and 4 though described as hire purchase agreement is only a loan transaction, that defendants 1 to 3 have no right to seize the bus from his possession and that at any rate they should not be
















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