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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 75110

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SREECHITHIRA.O.S. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) 5202/2022



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 27TH MAGHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 5202 OF 2022 PETITIONER:

SREECHITHIRA O S AGED 48 YEARS D/O.OMANAKUTTAN K.N, KOCHUVEETTIL HOUSE, CHENNITHALA SOUTH P.O, THRIPUNITHURA, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA- 690105 BY ADV K.C.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS:

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY UNION CHIEF SECRETARY, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SECRETORIATE, NEW DELHI, PIN: 110001

2 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNER, MAIN BUILDING, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD, PIN- 400001

3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURMA- 695 001

4 SAKTHI FINANCE LTD. BRANCH OFFICE AT CRESENT TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR, AMCW 20/115 VELLAKINAR JUNCTION, ALAPPUZHA – 688001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, SAKTHI FINANCE LTD, BRANCH OFFICE AT CRESCENT TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR, AMCW 20/115 VELLAKINAR JUNCTION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT- 688001 SRI.APPU PS GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

16.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 16th day of February, 2022 The petitioner states that even though the petitioner is eligible for Moratorium Benefits, the 4th respondent-Finance Company has not extended the benefit. Therefore, the 4th respondent should be directed not to proceed against the petitioner’s Ashok Leyland Goods Carrier Tipper Lorry having engine No.JPGZ108083 and Chassis No. MB1HTVHD7JPFC4745.

2. The 4th respondent in the writ petition is a Private Financing Company having its office at Alappuzha. It is not ‘State’ or an ‘instrumentality of the State’. The dispute raised by the petitioner is purely private dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. The petitioner has not projected any public duty to be discharged by the 4th respondent.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is not maintainable.

The writ petition is therefore dismissed.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh APPENDIX PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 R C BOOK OF THE PETITIONERS VEHICLE KL

61 C 9920 DATED 10.04.2018 ISSUED FROM THE KUNNATHUR SRTO EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF CONSENT LETTER MADE FORCIBLY BY THE RESPONDENT FINANCE COMPANCY FROM THE PETITIONER DATED 30.12.2021 RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS NIL

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 Back to top