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

2006 Supreme(Raj) 1993

Supreme Court
Honble H.K. SEMA, J. Honble R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.
Indian Oil Corporation (M/s.) - Appellant
Versus
NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 834 of 2002
Decided On : July 20, 2006

Advocates Appeared:
L. Nageshwar Rao, Sr. Advocate, H.K. Puri, Ujjwal Banerjee, S.K. Puri, Priya Puri and V.M. Chauhan, Advocates, with him, for Appellant C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Advocate, Sanjay Sen, S.R. Raghunathan, Rana S. Biswas, Indra Sawhney and Pramod Dayal, Advocates, wi

Headnote:Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 482 and Penal Code, Sec. 405, 415 and 425 – Whether existence or availment of civil remedy in respect of disputes arising from breach of contract, bars remedy under criminal law – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Aircraft hypothecated to creditor with right to take possession in default – Default in payment – Oil Corporation filed suit for recovery of money due against companies – Obtained injunction restraining company from removing hypotecated aircraft from airport – Owner removed enjines fitted in aircraft – Complaint by creditor u/Sec. 405, 415, 425 IPC – Held – Complaint not liable to be quashed as allegations constitute offence of cheating and mischief – When a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is not completely barred. (Paras 11 to 13, 21, 23, 24, 29 to 31)

       

Honble RAVEENDRAN, J.–These appeals are filed against the common order dated 29.3.2001 passed by the Madras High Court allowing Crl.O.P. Nos. 241 of 1999 and 1563 of 2000. The said two petitions were filed by the respondents herein under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (Code for short) for quashing the complaints filed by the appellant against them in C.C. no. 299 of 1999 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Coimbatore and C.C. No. 286 of 1998 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Alandur (Chennai).

(2). The appellant (Indian Oil Corporation, for short IOC) entered into two contracts, one with the first respondent (NEPC India Ltd.) and the other with its sister company Skyline NEPC Limited (Skyline for short) agreeing to supply to them aviation turbine fuel and aviation lubricants (together referred to as aircraft fuel). According to the appellant, in respect of the aircraft fuel supplied under the said contracts, the first respondent became due in a sum of Rs. 5,28,23,501.90 and Skyline became due in a sum of Rs. 13,12,76,421.25 as on 29.4.1997.

(3). The first respondent hypothecated its two Fokker F27-500 Aircrafts, bearing Registration No. VT-NEJ (12684) and VT-NEK (10687) to the appellant under Deed of Hypothecation dated 1.5.1997, to secure the outstanding amounts. Clause (2) of the said Deed provided that the two aircrafts with all parts and accessories stood hypothecated to IOC by way of charge and as security for payment of the amounts due, with effect from the date of hypothecation. Clause (3) read with the schedule for payment of the amount due. Under clause (6), NEPC India declared that it would not assign, sell, pledge, charge, underlet or otherwise encumber or part with the possession, custody or beneficial interest in respect of the two aircrafts without the previous written consent of IOC. It also undertook not to do any act which may diminish the value of the hypothecated property without clearing the entire outstanding amount. Clause (9) provided that if NEPC India failed to pay any of the instalments with interest within the stipulated time, or if any undertaking or assurance given by NEPC India was found to be false, IOC shall have the "right to take possession of the hypothecated property" and sell the same by public auction or by private contract and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the outstanding dues without recourse to court of law. Clause 12 confirmed that NEPC India had handed over the title deeds relating to the aircraft to IOC, and agreed to receive them back only after paying the amounts due. It is stated that Skyline also hypothecated its aircraft (VT-ECP) under a separate Hypothecation Deed dated 14.5.1997. It is further stated that a tripartite agreement dated 6.5.1997 was entered among IOC, NEPC India and Skyline setting out the mode of payment of the dues and recovery in the event of default.

(4). As NEPC India failed to pay the first two instalments as per schedule, IOC stopped supply of aircraft fuel on 3.6.1997. However, subsequently, under a fresh agreement dated 20.9.1997, a revised payment schedule was agreed and IOC agreed to recommence supply of aircraft fuel on cash and carry basis. Even this arrangement came to an end as the instalments were not paid.

(5). Apprehending that NEPC India may remove the hypothecated aircraft (VT-NEJ) from Coimbatore Airport to a place outside its reach, IOC filed C.S. No. 425 of 1997 in the Madras High Court seeking a mandatory injunction to the Airport Authority of India and Director General of Civil Aviation to detail the said aircraft stationed at Coimbatore Airport, under section 8 of the Aircraft Act, 1934, so as to enable it to take possession thereof. The High Court granted an interim injunction on 16.9.1997 restraining NEPC India from removing the aircraft (VT- NEJ) from Coimbatore Airport. In regard to the other hypothecated aircraft (VT-NEK) kept at Meenambakkam (Chennai) Airport, IOC filed a suit (OS No. 3327./1998) in the City Civ




















































































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 Back to top