AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.—The petitioners are finance companies which deal in financing of Taxi Scooter Rickshaws (TSRs) in the city of Delhi. The said financing is done under hire purchase agreements entered into between the finance companies and individuals.
The petitioners in the present writ petition have impugned the Circular No.34/2003/C&T/AC-V/PHQ dated 6.6.2003 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Head Quarters, Delhi. The circular has been issued in respect of re-possession of cars. The circular was issued pursuant to the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Crl.W. No. 525/2003. The decision was rendered on 29.5.2003 and the same is reported in 104 (2003) DLT 1015.
3.The main grievance of the petitioners is that the guidelines that have been issued by the Division Bench pertain only to cars and deal with the providers of loans for cars and the re-possession of cars in case of non-payment of installments. The circular also only speaks of cars. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that although the guidelines and the circular speak of cars alone, the same are being made applicable to TSRs also.
Insofar as the right to repossess is concerned that is governed under the hire purchase agreements and that has to be seen in the light of the Supreme Court decision in Charanjit Singh Chadha and Others Vs. Sudhir Mehra, thereof which read as under:
" 11.The whole case put forward by the respondent complainant is to be appreciated in view of the stringent terms incorporated in the agreement. If the hirer himself has committed default by not paying the installments and under the agreement the appellants have taken repossession of the vehicle, the respondent cannot have any grievance. The respondent cannot be permitted to say that the owner of the vehicle has committed theft of the vehicle or criminal breach of trust or cheating or criminal conspiracy as alleged in the complaint. When the agreement specifically says that the owner has got a right to repossess the vehicle, there cannot be any basis for alleging that the appellants have committed criminal breach of trust or cheating.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
17.The hire-purchase agreement in law is an executory contract of sale and confers no right in rem on the hirer until the conditions for transfer of the property to him have been fulfilled. Therefore, the repossession of goods as per the term of the agreement may not amount to any criminal offence. The agreement (Annexure P-1) specifically gave authority to the appellants to repossess the vehicle and their agents have been given the right to enter any property or building wherein the motor vehicle was likely to be kept. Under the hire-purchase agreement, the appellants have continued to be the owners of the vehicle and even if the entire allegations against them are taken as true, no offence was made out against them. The learned single Judge seriously flawed in his decision and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by not quashing the proceedings initiated against the appellants. We, Therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. The complaint and any other proceedings initiated pursuant to such complaint are quashed.
In any event, the only question in this writ petition is with regard to the applicability of the circular to the petitioners in the case of hire purchase agreement with regard to TSRs. It is clear upon reading the Division Bench Judgment and the circular that the same only pertains to cars and do not relate to TSRs. In this view of the matter, the circular would clearly not be applicable to the TSRs and Therefore no further directions are needed to be given in this writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.