Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1795 (PNJ)

Swaran Singh v. Sikandar Singh

2009-10-20

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2009
Judgment Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. 1. As per the averments, the petitioner had obtained an amount of Rs. 9.25 lakhs as loan from the respondent. Out of the same, an amount of Rs. 5.25 lakhs already stands repaid. After getting the loan rescheduled, the petitioner has paid another amount of Rs. 1.75 lakh. In. spite of the same, the truck of the petitioner was subsequently taken away by the musclemen employed by the respondent on 28.3.2009 with force and without the consent of the petitioner. 2. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the aforesaid action of the respondent is in violation of the directions issued by the Honble Supreme Court in Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Parkash Kaur, 2007(2) RCR(Crl) 76:2007(1) RAJ 810 and ICICI Bank v. Shanti Devi Sharma, 2008(3) RCR(CrL) 463:2008(4) RAJ 188 and, therefore, the respondent should be proceeded under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 3. Notice of motion was issued to the respondent for 12.8.2009 to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him." 4. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, reply on behalf of the respondent was filed submitting that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands and has concealed material facts from the knowledge of this Court. It was further submitted that the petitioner had committed default in making the repayments of the loan as he was bound to pay a sum of Rs. 11.84,758/- till 16.3.2009, the date on which the loan agreement itself expired. Since the petitioner had committed default, a registered notice dated 6.1.2006 was sent to him as well as guarantor to make the payment. Thereafter, on 21.3.2009, another notice was issued. Even thereafter, the payment was not made and ultimately as per the agreement the vehicle was repossessed on 28.3.2009 by the officials of the respondent-Company after Informing the police vide Annexure R-4 and at the time of re-possessing the vehicle, inventory list was prepared which was duly signed by its driver. 5. Thereafter, vide notice dated 30.3.2009, the petitioner was requested to deposit the full and final amount but instead of making the payment, the petitioner served a legal notice upon the respondent on the basis of incorrect averments. 5. Thereafter, vide notice dated 30.3.2009, the petitioner was requested to deposit the full and final amount but instead of making the payment, the petitioner served a legal notice upon the respondent on the basis of incorrect averments. Even the aforesaid notice was replied to and thus, in view of the aforesaid facts, the respondent has not violated the principles laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments. 6. During the course of arguments on 24.8.2009, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to reconcile the statement of accounts produced by the respondent and to seek further instructions with regard to the payment of defaulted amount. On 7.9.2009, learned counsel for the petitioner had stated before this Court that the petitioner be permitted to sell the truck in question to get the maximum sale price so that he could make the payment to the respondent-Company to square off his loan account. On 20.10.2009, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not in a position to pay any amount at this stage. 7. Thus, keeping in view the fact that admittedly, the petitioner has taken the loan from the respondent for purchase of the truck in question and the petitioner has failed to make the repayment as per schedule and that he has refused to make the payment and also the fact that the respondent has repossessed the truck in question in accordance with law, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.