Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2541 (MAD)

Anjugam v. General Manager, Complaint Cell

2012-06-20

M.JAICHANDREN

body2012
JUDGMENT:- 1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this Court, may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3, to restrain the 4th respondent from seizing the petitioner's vehicle, bearing Registration No. TN 07P 0207 and to further direct the 4th respondent to return the original documents deposited by the petitioner towards the loan account No. TSLVRIDH 00000093, on the file of the 4th respondent. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner had availed a loan, from the fourth respondent Finance Company, for purchasing the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 07P 0207. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further submitted that, inspite of the petitioner having paid the entire amount due to the fourth respondent, in respect of the loan availed by the petitioner, the fourth respondent is refusing to return the original documents deposited by the petitioner. He had further submitted that the fourth respondent is attempting to seize the vehicle in question using goondas and rowdy elements. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent had denied the allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit, filed in support of the petition. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent had further submitted that a sum of Rs.1,45,451/-is due from the petitioner, in respect of the installments payable by the petitioner. 4. He had further submitted that a sum of Rs.1,67,258/-, is due from the petitioner, as overdue charges, on the belated and default installments, at 36% per annum, as per the terms and conditions of the loan-cum- Hypothecation Agreement, dated 27.03.2008. Therefore, the fourth respondent is entitled to seize the said vehicle, on the failure of the petitioner to pay the said amount. He had further submitted that the present Writ Petition, filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable against the fourth respondent, as the fourth respondent is a private Company. He had further submitted that, as per Clause 10.14 of the terms and conditions of the said agreement, all disputes in connection with the agreement shall be settled by way of arbitration. In such circumstances, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. He had further submitted that, as per Clause 10.14 of the terms and conditions of the said agreement, all disputes in connection with the agreement shall be settled by way of arbitration. In such circumstances, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the fourth respondent, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition, filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable, in view of the fact that the fourth respondent is not an authority coming under the definition of 'State', under Article 12 of Constitution of India. Further, there is a dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent company, with regard to the payment of installments and the over due charges, relating to the belated and defaulted installments, said to be payable by the petitioner, as per the terms and conditions of the loan- cum- Hypotehcation agreement, dated 27.03.2008, entered into between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to restrain the fourth respondent from seizing the vehicle in question, as it is stated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent that the fourth respondent is entitled to seize the vehicle in question, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan-cum-Hypotehcation agreement, dated 27.03.2003, on the failure of the petitioner to comply with the conditions incorporated therein. However, it goes without saying that it would not be appropriate for the fourth respondent to seize the vehicle in question, using goondas and rowdy elements as agents to recover the amounts said to be due from the petitioner, in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in its decision, in Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Versus Prakash Kaur and others, reported in 2007 2 CTC 334. As such circumstances, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.