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

1988 Supreme(Ori) 146

G.B.PATTANAIK
PH. ARUNACHALAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
C.A.RAO, C.M.K.MURTY, C.V.MURTHY, P.K.MISHRA, S.K.PATNAIK

G. B. PATTANAIK, J.


( 1 ) ORDER :- The order of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Angul rejecting the petitioners prayer to hand over the seized truck in his custody during the pendency of the criminal case is being challenged in this revision.

( 2 ) PETITIONER's case briefly stated is that he is the representative of Coromandel Finance Company Limited, who has the hire purchase business. Pursuant to a hire purchase agreement between the said finance company and opposite party No. 2, a sum of Rs. 2,35,900/- was advanced to opposite party No. 2 for purchase of the vehicle C. R. D. 7801. The amount in question was to be repaid in thirty five instalments as contained in the agreement itself. The vehicle was purchased from one Ramdas Motor Transport Company and though in the register of Book, opposite party No. 2 was described as a registered owner, but in the insurance policy as well as in the registration book, it was specifically mentioned that the financing company would continue to be the owner of the vehicle until the entire amount under loan is paid up. The hire purchase agreement further contains a stipulation that in the event the borrower fails to pay the instalments i





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