AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is a Financier who has financed Motor Vehicles on hire purchase basis to persons who wanted to buy vehicles but who did not have adequate funds for the purchase of the vehicles. Under the terms of the Hire Purchase Agreement, the petitioner has the right to seize and possess the vehicles without the intervention of the Court. Unfortunately the petitioner has come to be implicated in Criminal cases whenever such seizure is attempted or made.
Therefore the Petitioner filed Criminal petitions u/s 482 Cr.P.C. on the file of this court, in C-l.O.P. No. 3737 to 3741/07. By an order dated 6.6.2007 those Criminal Petitions were disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to work out his remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents, to provide adequate aid for repossessing the vehicles from the defaulters as per the terms of Hire Purchase Agreement.
Heard Mr. K. Jeganathan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D. Sasikumar, the learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.
After the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kaur and Others, the banks and financial institutions are not entitled to engage Collection agents for the purpose of taking repossession of the vehicles. Such methods of taking possession of the vehicles was held by the Apex Court to be unlawful.
Taking advantage of the said decision, it appears that Criminal cases came to be filed against the petitioner, whenever he made attempts to seize and possess the vehicles. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition expressing a desire to follow due process of law. In order to avoid an allegation that he did not follow due process of law, the petitioner wants to take the aid of the police itself.
However in my considered view, such a direction to the Police to give aid to the petitioner for the purpose of seizing and re-possessing the vehicles, may be used exactly to do what was sought to be undone by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. What the financiers are not expected to do through collection agents, they shall not do through Police also. Therefore the proper remedy open to the financiers and financial institutions in such a case is to approach the Civil Court, obtain interim orders exparte or otherwise, for the, appointment of Advocate Commissioners for seizing and possessing vehicles. While obtaining such orders, the financiers could always seek Police protection for the Advocate Commissioners to execute the warrant of commission issued to them. This procedure in my considered view would be the due process of law. It will ensure that there is no complaint either against the financier or against anyone else even while ensuring that the terms of the Hire Purchase Agreement could be enforced b) the financiers.
Therefore this Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the Petitioner to approach the Civil and obtain orders for the appointment of Advocate Commissioners, to seize and possess the vehicles together with orders for Police aid to the Advocate Commissioner for executing the warrant of Commission. No costs.