The main legal point established in the judgment is the rights of a financial institution in a hire purchase agreement and the ownership of the goods, and the need to consider these rights in the context of the TNPID Act.

1. The petitioner in both these cases is a company registered under the Companies Act involved in the business of extending financial assistance for the purchase of motor vehicles, machinery and other assets.

2. In W.P.No.28583 of 2013, the petitioner has challenged the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.178 Home (Police XIX), dated 19.03.2013 and for a consequential direction to return the vehicles to the petitioner.

3. In Crl.R.C.Nos.259 to 265 of 2014, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 07.01.2014, passed by the Special Judge of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'TNPID Act'), Coimbatore, dismissing the petitions filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., wherein prayer was made to grant interim custody of the vehicles mentioned in those petitions.

4. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, the Criminal Revision Cases and the Writ Petition have been clubbed together and posted for being heard together.

5. The case of the petitioner is that they granted financial assistance to the private respondents and its Partners/Directors, for purchase of vehicles, whose registration numbers have been mentioned in the prayer in the writ petition. Since, the private respondent/purchasers failed to repay the loan amount, the petitioner had taken steps to repossess the vehicle. At that stage, they came to know that the fourth respondent Police have registered a criminal case against the private respondent/directors/partners under Section 120(b), 406 & 420 IPC read with Section 5 of the TNPID Act in various crime numbers and the vehicles which were financed by the petitioner, were seized by the fourth respondent Police in connection with the said criminal cases. The petitioner would contend that they are the owner of the vehicles, as there is a hypothetication agreement between the petitioner and the purchaser and there is an endorsement in the registration certificate of all the vehicles, which reveal that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the vehicles and the fourth respondent Police has no jurisdiction to seize the vehicle.

6. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.Nos.7180, 7182 & 7186 of 2013, with a prayer for issuance of a direction upon the respondents 3 and 4 and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode as well as the borrowers to grant custody of the vehicles, whose registration numbers were furnished.

7. In the writ petition in W.P.No.7180 of 2013, one of the borrower/accused Mrs. S. Indumathi had filed a counter affidavit stating that the order of attachment made, has been challenged before the Special Court in O.A.Nos.27 and 28 of 2013, which are pending. It was further stated that during the course of investigation, the vehicles have been seized and shown as the case property and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get interim custody of the vehicle that too in a writ petition, since there are contentious issues raised by the petitioner based on a hire purchase agreement, which has to be established before the competent Court and cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further stated that the petitioner has to move the Special Court for TNPID Act cases under Section 451 or Section 457 Cr.P.C. It was further contended that the provision of the Act namely, Section 3, Section 4(3), Section 4(5) and Section 6 and the other provisions of the Act provide a comprehensive mechanism for attaching the properties and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

8. The custody of the vehicles were sought for raising an identical contention as raised in this writ petition stating that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the vehicle, as there is a valid hypothetication agreement. This Court by a common order dated 04.10.2013, partly allowed the writ petitions giving liberty to the petitioner to make an appl