Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 447 (KER)

Zoom Car India Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Kerala

2021-04-13

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

body2021
JUDGMENT : This writ petition seeks for a direction to the respondents to release the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03-AJ-1530 alleged to be involved in Crime No.90/2021 of the Harbour Crime Police Station to the authorised representative of the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is a company alleged to be involved in the business of renting cars to various customers through out the country. One of the cars bearing the aforesaid registration number met with an accident within the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent on 20.02.2021 and a Crime No.90/2021 has been registered by the 3rd respondent, against the driver, for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. 3. According to the petitioner, even though they had authorised their representative to take interim custody of the vehicle involved in the above said crime, the 3rd respondent is insisting upon the Managing Director to appear before the 3rd respondent to collect the vehicle. It is submitted that as a legal entity, the first respondent can only send its authorised representative to collect the vehicle and once the authorisation is found to be genuine, there is no reason for the 3rd respondent to refuse to handover custody of the vehicle to the petitioner's authorised representatives. 4. I have heard Adv.Latheesh Sebastian as well as the learned Public Prosecutor Smt.S.L.Sylaja. 5. Petitioner is company, registered under the Indian Companies Act and is a distinct personality under law. They are entitled to authorise, by resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company, any person to act on their behalf. As long as there is no dispute on the ownership of the vehicle, when an authorisation is produced before the investigating officer, necessarily the vehicle is liable to be given in possession as a measure of interim custody and the same cannot be deprived or denied on the basis that the Managing Director must appear in person. It is necessary to note that under law even the Managing Director is only a person authorised by the Board of Directors or by the Memorandum of the Association to represent the company. Thus legally, the Board of Directors are authorised to entrust any person to act on behalf of the company. 6. Ext.P3 is stated to be the authorisation given to Mr.Hathim Abdul Rasheed to represent the company for the purposes of securing licenses, permits, registrations, approvals etc. Thus legally, the Board of Directors are authorised to entrust any person to act on behalf of the company. 6. Ext.P3 is stated to be the authorisation given to Mr.Hathim Abdul Rasheed to represent the company for the purposes of securing licenses, permits, registrations, approvals etc. The said authorisation, according to the petitioners, provide sufficient authority to the said Hathim Abdul Rasheed to take possession of the vehicle involved in the accident. 7. The circumstances mentioned above, clearly shows that the company has authorised, through its resolution, a particular person to represent the company. The authorisation produced as Ext.P3 is general in nature and the same is sufficient to cover all actions and activities relating to the functioning of the business of the company. As long as the said authorisation remains in force, there is no reason why the custody of the vehicle, whose registration number is mentioned in this judgment, cannot be given to the authorised representatives. However, the conditions can be imposed that the authorised representative must produce for the perusal of the 3rd respondent the original RC Book of the vehicle involved in the case. Accordingly, the following orders are passed : 1. If the authorised representative of the petitioner company, produces the original of the authorisation (Ext.P3) before the 3rd respondent along with the original registration certificates/ registration book of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-03-AJ-1530, the 3rd respondent after recording satisfaction of the veracity of the said documents, shall handover custody of the said vehicle to the said authorised representative, immediately. 2. The 3rd respondent shall retain copies of the authorisation as well as registration certificates/ books for its records and return the original records to the petitioner. 3. An affidavit of undertaking shall be filed by the authorised representatives undertaking to produce the vehicle before the 3rd respondent as and when required along with the details of his permanent and present address. The writ petition is allowed as above.