Delhi High Court
Indusind Bank Ltd vs State & Anr. on 1 September, 2008
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C.No.2553/2008
% Date of Decision: 01.09.2008
Indusind Bank Ltd .... Petitioner
Through Mr.T.S.Ahuja, Advocate
Versus
State & Anr. .... Respondents
Through Mr.R.N.Vats, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner is challenging the order dated 15th March, 2008
dismissing the application of the petitioner for giving the vehicle on
superdari to the petitioner which vehicle had already been released on
superdari to the respondent No.2.
It is not disputed that the respondent No.2 has been shown as
the owner in the papers pertaining to the vehicle and on the basis of the
same the vehicle was released on superdari to him. It is also not
disputed that the hire purchase agreement which was entered into
between the parties, on the basis of which ownership could be claimed
by the petitioner, was terminated and a new loan agreement had been
entered into between the parties.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order on
the ground that a clause in the loan agreement was about re-entry in
case of default in payment of installments of the loan.
The learned Magistrate has considered the precedents relied on
by the petitioner and respondent No.2 and has held that there is no
reasonable cause for cancellation of superdari in the name of present
superdar. The learned counsel for the petitioner is also unable to show
any reason for cancellation of superdari in favour of respondent No.2.
The only plea is that under the loan agreement the petitioner is entitled
for possession of the vehicle on failure of the respondent no.2 to pay the
installment of loan amount.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on 1994 Supp(1)
SCC 507, Manipal Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. T.Bangarappa & Ors. and
II (2007) CCR 133, Ashok Leyland Finance v.Suresh Kumar Tiwari &
Ors to contend that the petitioner is entitled for possession of the
vehicle. Perusal of the precedents relied on by the petitioner reveal that
the said precedents are distinguishable as in the case of Manipal
Finance Corpn.Ltd (supra) the agreement was for hire purchase in
contra distinction to the loan agreement executed between the
petitioner and respondent No.2, after cancellation of the hire purchase
agreement. Similarly, in the case of Ashok Leyland Finance (Supra) the
agreement executed between the parties was a hire purchase agreement
and in the peculiar facts and circumstances the superdari of the vehicle
was given to the financer.
The learned Magistrate has held that even though the loan
agreement contains a re-entry clause, the owner of the vehicle in
question is respondent No.2/superdar and not the applicant bank. In
the circumstances, merely on account of a clause for re-entry in the
loan agreement, the petitioner is not entitled for change of superdari. In
case the petitioner invokes any civil remedy and he is granted any
interim order for taking possession of the vehicle on the basis of such
an order which may be passed in favour of petitioner, the petitioner will
be entitled for release of vehicle to him though the vehicle has already
been released to the owner/respondent No.2 in the facts and
circumstances.
In the facts and circumstances, thus, there is no manifest error
or illegality in the order dated 15th March, 2008 so as to entail
interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of
the Criminal Procedure Code. The petition is, therefore, without any
merit and it is, therefore, dismissed.
September 01, 2008. ANIL KUMAR, J.
'k'
