2015 Supreme(MP) 574
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Rohit Arya, J.
Seven Brothers (M/s.) v. Hinduja Leyland Finance Company and others
Writ Petition No.9079 of 2013 (Gwalior); Decided on 19.3.2015.
Arvind Dudawat with Dhirendra Singh for petitioner;
M.M. Qureshi for respondents No.1 and 2.
Headnote:Constitution of India -- Arts.226 and 12 -- Companies Act, 1956 -- S.617 -- writ jurisdiction under -- sought directions against respondent No.1 a private finance company -- for release of machine -- provided on loan -- company being engaged in business of finance cannot be classified as "other authority" -- to bring it in fold of definition of 'State' -- considering factual matrix and relief of case -- writ petition not maintainable.
Held : In the opinion of this Court, the respondent-company, a private company engaged in the business of finance cannot be classified as ‘other authority’ to bring it in the fold of definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India to make it amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is found to be not maintainable considering the factual matrix of the case in hand and the nature of relief claimed therein. (2001)7 SCC 417, (1979)4 SCC 396, (2006)2 SCC 598, (2013)1 SCC 400, (2003)10 SCC 733, (1981)1 SCC 722 and (2002)5 SCC 111 followed.
Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 rFkk 12 && daiuh vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 617 && mica/kksa ds v/khu fjV vf/kdkfjrk && izR;FkhZ Ø-1 izkbosV Qk;usal daiuh ds fo#) nh xbZ e'khu fueqZDr djkus ds fy, funs'k pkgs x, && daiuh ds foÙkh; O;olk; esa yxh gksus ds dkj.k bldks ßjkT;Þ dh ifjHkk"kk ds lkFk tksM+us ds fy, ßvU; izkfèkdkjhÞ dh rjg oxhZÑr ugha fd;k tk ldrk && ekeys ds rF;kRed vk/kkj rFkk vuqrks"k ij fopkj djrs gq, && fjV ;kfpdk iks"k.kh; ughaA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % bl U;k;ky; dh jk; esa] izR;FkhZ daiuh],d foÙkh; O;olk; esa yxh gqbZ izkbosV daiuh dks Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu fjV vfèkdkfjrk ds v/;/khu ykus ds fy, Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 12 ds v/khu ßjkT;Þ dh ifjHkk"kk ls tksM+us ds fy, ßvU; izkf/kdkjhÞ dh rjg bls oxhZÑr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA blfy, orZeku ekeys ds rF;kRed vk/kkj rFkk blesa pkgs x, vuqrks"k dh izÑfr ij fopkj djrs gq, fjV ;kfpdk iks"k.kh; ugha ikbZ xbZA ¼2001½7,l lh lh 417] ¼1979½4,l lh lh 396] ¼2006½2,l lh lh 598] ¼2013½1,l lh lh 400] ¼2003½10,l lh lh 733] ¼1981½1,l lh lh 722 rFkk ¼2002½5,l lh lh 111 vuqlfjrA
1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the relief in the form of direction against the respondent No.1, Hinduja Leyland Finance Company (hereinafter referred to as the respondentcompany) for release of the Excavator Machine on supardgi subject to payment of necessary dues regularly on monthly installments and further relief incorporated by way of amendment vide order dated 3.2.2014 in the form of direction to newly added respondents’ No.3 and 4 to take action and register criminal case against the respondent No.2 and his companions on the basis of complaints made by the petitioner with further direction to respondent No.4 to give possession of the Machine in question to the petitioner forthwith.
2. Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this writ petition are to the effect that petitioner had approached respondent-company, a finance company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 for purchase of new Hyundai R215 LC7 Excavator Machine with Sr.No.N603D0042 and Engine No.84093664 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Machine’) under the loan scheme of the respondent-company. The loan agreement No.MPIDGW00041 dated 30.4.2013 was entered into between the petitioner (the borrower) with one Brijendra Singh as guarantor and the respondent-company (the lender). The loan amount advanced was to the tune of Rs.36,60,000/-. The same was required to be repaid in 33 installments at the rate of Rs.1,38,550/- per month commencing from 1.6.2013. The loan amount was released and the machine was purchased by the petitioner from a dealer. The terms and conditions are contained in the loan agreement. Article 2.9 of the Agreement deals with repayment of loan, Article 2.10 of the Agreement deals with mode of payment of the instalments. Article 13 deals with events of default and Article 14 of the Agreement deals with lender’s right of recovery of loan and inter alia Article 14.1 provides that upon occurrence of any/all of the events of default, the borrower shall be liable to pay to the lender as provided for therein. Article 14.2 thereof provides as under :
“14.2 In the event of failure of the borrower in complying with the demand in the said notice the borrower shall be bound to surrender to th lender at the cost of the borrower at such location, as the lender may designate, in the same condition in which it was originally delivered to the borrower, ordinary wear and tear expected, failing which, the lender shall be entitled to seize the asset wherever, is without any further notice. The borrower shall not prevent or obstruct the lender from taking the possession of the asset. For purpose, the lender’s authorised representatives, employees, officers and agents will have unrestricted right to entry and shall entitled to enter upon the premises, or garage, or godown, where the Asset shall be lying or kept, and to seize the asset. In the event of the borrower not cooperating, the lender, if necessary have the right to break open any such place where the asset is believed to kept and to seize the asset. The lender will be well within its rights to use towvan or any carrier to carry away the asset. The borrower shall be liable to pay any towing charges and other such expenses incurred by the lender in connection with the seizure of the asset and for its sale etc.”
Article 14.3 of the agreement provides that after seizure, lender’s authorised representative, employees, officers or agents will prepare an Inventory of the Asset. Thereafter, the lender will send a notice with a copy of the inventory, granting the borrower 10 days time to settle the contract and to take back the vehicle by following the other conditions contained therein. Article 22 of the agreement provides for law, jurisdiction and arbitration which reads as under :
“22.1 (a) All disputes, differences and/or claim arising out of thi