No interference required with the order passed by lower court.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

These revisions are filed by the Plaintiff in O.S. 4291 of 1998 on the file of XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.

2. Petitioner, who is a Public Limited Company, availed financial assistance from the first respondent in the suit, for purchasing a FORD Car. The price of the vehicle as per the invoice was Rs. 8,45,782/-. Petitioner availed a loan of Rs. 6,77,238.43 from the first respondent-Bank. Petitioner agreed to pay interest at 18.36% per annum. It also agreed to repay the entire amount in various instalments and it has to pay a sum of Rs. 15,187/- towards principal and Rs. 10,388/- towards interest, in all Rs. 25,575/- for one instalment. Plaintiff paid nine instalments on the basis of the agreement. It has to pay 27 more instalments and the instalment comes to an end in July 2000.

3. While so, the Company met with great financial difficulty and the money which had been earmarked for payment of instalments could not be paid in time. It is the case of the petitioner that there was various legal proceedings between the plaintiff-company and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board with regard to the power supply and on account of certain discrepancies in the plant and machinery erected and the power supplied by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. In view of the financial difficulties, two cheques issued by the plaintiff were dishonoured and plaintiff immediately coming to know about the same, wanted to substitute the same by two pay orders. But the defendant refused to accept the same.

4. While so, first respondent wanted the plaintiff to produce the R. C. Book and tax papers through the representative of the company. Believing the representation of the Bank, Plaintiffs representative presented all the documents pertaining to the R.C. Book of the vehicle and tax papers. Thereafter, first respondent after retaining the documents also requested that they wanted to inspect the vehicle. Believing that representation, the vehicle was also produced for inspection. But the first respondent refused to part with the vehicle and seized the same.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent acted violating the business ethics and it is not entitled to repossess the vehicle without valid notice. It is its further case that unless the first respondent establishes the default in payment of instalment is deliberate, the power of seizure cannot be exercised arbitrarily and unilaterally. When payment could not be made for a short period and that too for unforeseen circumstances and when it is beyond the control of the petitioner, first respondent should not have acted harshly. According to the petitioner, the default is not voluntary.

6. It is further stated in the plaint that after seizure of the vehicle, first respondent sent a telegram as if the petitioner has been dispossessed of the vehicle in accordance with law. For the said telegram, a reply was sent by the counsel of the petitioner on 3-7-1998 wherein it is stated that the seizure of the vehicle is invalid and the first respondent committed breach of Trust and the first respondent cheated the petitioner by retaining the R.C. Book and Insurance papers of the vehicle. According to petitioner, first respondent has no manner of right or interest to seize the vehicle without notice or without following the terms of the Hire-purchase agreement dated 7-8-1997. Since the action of the first respondent is illegal, immoral and opposed to all canons of principles of law, Plaintiff is compelled to come to this Court to seek declaration that the seizure of the vehicle effected by the first respondent on 20-6-1998 is illegal, unauthorised and void ab initio and for mandatory injunction directing the first respondent to release the vehicle.

7. Along with the suit, two interim applications in I.A. 10002 and 10003 of 1998 were also filed. In I.A. 10002 of 1998, the relief sought for is to grant a permanent injunction restraining the