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

2009 Supreme(All) 2697

S.P.MEHROTRA, ANIL KUMAR
Rajendra Prasad Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


ORDER

S. P. Mehrotra and Anil Kumar, JJ.—We have heard Miss. Deepti Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ashish Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for issuance of writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to release the vehicle of the petitioner without any delay.

3. It appears that the petitioner took loan from the respondent No. 3 (Sri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Lucknow) and the respondent No. 4 (Sri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Sultanpur) under an agreement for purchase of Truck. The petitioner defaulted in payment of the instalments, and, therefore, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 seized the Truck in question. Thereupon, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above.

4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, Sri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. is merely a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956,


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