Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 696 (MP)

H. D. F. C. Bank Limited v. State of M. P.

2014-06-23

M.C.GARG

body2014
ORDER 1. The Bank claims possession of the vehicle seized bearing No. MP-04-CD-1830 registered against the respondent under section 420 IPC. The vehicle is lying in the police custody for the last five years. The respondent has no arrears of the loan amount to the bank. 2. Accordingly to the petitioner the ownership of the vehicle is that of the bank and the respondent is a loanee and does not have perfect title. It is submitted that since the respondent is in default, the Bank is entitled to take possession of the vehicle. However, as the vehicle is in police custody, they cannot do so, though they are entitled to do so. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment delivered in the case of Ashok Leyland v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 2011 CrLJ 2011 . In the case while disposing of the application under section 451 CrPC of the bank, the learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court relied upon a Supreme Court judgment and it has been observed as under :- “6. In Charanjit Singh Chaddha’s case (supra) the apex Court has said that “the hire purchase agreement in law is an executory contract of sale and confers no right in rem on hirer until the conditions for transfer of the property to him have been fulfilled.” In this context the apex Court has further held that” the re-possession of goods as per the term of the agreement may not amount to any criminal offence.” If we appreciate the spirit of the law laid down by the apex Court in Manipal Finance Corpn. Ltd.’s case : ( AIR 2001 SC 3721 ) (supra) it will be found that it is the finance company who is the real owner and entitled to the possession of the property, as it advanced loan to the hirer, till the terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase Agreement are complied with in all respects. Opinions have been expressed by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court and High Court at Jabalpur in M.P. 7. Keeping in view the above position of law, it is evident that when the order impugned was passed by the learned lower Court, the revisionist was the real owner of the vehicle in question and, therefore, by not releasing the same to the custody of the revisionist, the learned lower Court has committed an illegality. Keeping in view the above position of law, it is evident that when the order impugned was passed by the learned lower Court, the revisionist was the real owner of the vehicle in question and, therefore, by not releasing the same to the custody of the revisionist, the learned lower Court has committed an illegality. Therefore, the said order cannot be allowed to sustain and it should be quashed. 8. The revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.4.2003 is quashed and set aside. The learned lower Court take back the possession of the vehicle and release it to the custody of the revisionist and if need to be assistance of the police may be taken. 9. This order will not prejudice and civil rights of the parties, if any. 10. The learned Judge is directed to release the vehicle, after its requisition, to the custody of the revisionist on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit. This exercise should be completed within a period of 60 days from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.” 4. In view of the aforesaid, the vehicle seized by the police bearing No.MP-04-CD-1830 be given to the petitioner/bank on furnishing the supurdginama in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court with an undertaking that they will produce the vehicle as and when required in this case. 5. As far as the other remedies are concerned they would be able to proceed with the agreement with the defaulter after obtaining necessary permission from the trial Court in this regard. 6. Nothing stated in this order will prejudice the trial Court to pass any appropriate order in the matter.