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

1999 Supreme(Mad) 373

High Court of Judicature at Madras
E. PADMANABHAN
M/s. Tata Finance Ltd., having its Registered Office at Bombay House, Chennai
Versus
H.P.Md.Madar, Chennai
C.R.P.No. 839 of 1999
Decided On : 08-04-1999

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:T.K. Seshadri, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R. Kamesh, Advocate.

Owners or their agent may take re-possession of the vehicle in case of termination of the terms of agreement.

Headnote:Hire Purchase agreement-Breach of the terms of agreement as per stipulation given under clause 20 of the agreement-Held, breach of the stipulation or failure to pay instalments by the hirer enables the owner to repossess the vehicle without approaching any authority or arbitrator.

Judgment

1. This revision is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 29.1.1999 made in I.A.No.16881 of 1998 in O.S.No.4761 of 1998 on the file of the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The contesting respondent lodged a caveat on 16.3.1999, when the revision came up for admission this Court directed the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the caveator to be ready for final hearing of the revision petition itself as the issue raised in the revision will decide the very suit itself.

3. Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, learned counsel for the respondent expressed willingness for the immediate disposal of the revision petition. Accordingly, the revision was taken up with the consent of either side on 23.3.1999.

4. Heard. Mr.T.K.Seshadri for the revision petitioner and Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy and Mr.R.Kamesh for the respondents.

5. The factual matrix requires a mention. The respondent in this revision petition instituted O.S.No.4761 of 1998 on the file of the I Assistant Civil Judge, Chennai seeking for a declaration that the repossession of the bus bearing Registration No.Ka-05-B-7899 on 8.6.1998 is illegal and high-handed and for consequential mandatory injunction directing the defendant to release the said Bus to the plaintiff forthwith and for other incidental reliefs. The said suit is pending. Pending the suit, the defendant took out an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.16881 of 1998 under Sec.8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requesting the court to refer the plaintiff and the defendant in the suit to arbitration as agreed to in the hire purchase agreement admittedly executed by the plaintiff. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff contending that the defendant had repossessed the bus high-handedly without resorting to arbitration and that the relief prayed for will not fall within the scope of dispute for which arbitration has been provided in the hire purchase finance agreement entered between the parties and therefore the application is not maintainable.

6. The court below by order dated 29.11.1999 rejected the application holding that the suit as instituted by the plaintiff is maintainable and that the application is not maintainable either on facts or in law. Being aggrieved, the present revision has been preferred by the defendant, in the said suit.

7. Even on 16.3.1999, after hearing for a while this Court made it clear that instead of an arbitrator being appointed by the defendant/hire purchase financier in terms of the agreement, this Court itself will appoint an arbitrator and all the disputes between the parties would be gone into before the said Arbitrator and this Court required the counsel for the either side to get instructions. On 23.3.1999 Mr.T.K.Seshadri, the counsel for the petitioner on instructions reported that the revision petitioner is agreeable for such a course for expeditious disposal of the dispute even though the revision petitioner is anxious to appoint its own Arbitrator in terms of the hire purchase agreement. However, the learned counsel for the respondent was not willing to adopt such a course and hence arguments were advanced on merits.

8. This court makes it clear that the revision has to be decided on merits and on the interpretation placed on the arbitration clause contained in the hire purchase agreement entered between the parties.

9. Admittedly the vehicle in question is a new vehicle with respect to which the defendant/hire purchase financier entered into an hire purchase agreement with the defendant. The defendant also admits the execution of the hire purchase agreement and there is no challenge to any portion of the agreement. The relevant clauses in the hire purchase agreement in this respect are to be extracted for immediate reference. A copy of the hire purchase agreement placed before the court by the counsel for the revision petitioner. The same has been admitted to be correct by the respondent as well.

10. The hire p




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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