Delhi High Court
Cholamandalam Investment And ... vs Sunita And Ors on 31 July, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 31st July, 2012
+ CM (M) No. 802/2012 & CM No. 12031/2012 (stay)
CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT
AND FINANCE CO LTD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate
versus
SUNITA AND ORS ..... Respondent
Through Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. A Tata Tempo 407 bearing registration No.HR 63-7368 was alleged
to have met with an accident on 17th May, 2006. According to the
petitioner, this vehicle was financed on 31st May, 2006. It was not
aware of any accident with this vehicle as Respondent No. 6 never
informed it about the same. There were defaults in payments of
instalments. Earlier said vehicle was repossessed by the petitioner in
December, 2006 and was sold in auction in March, 2007 for a sum of
`2,30,000/-.
2. On a Claim Petition No. 866/2006 preferred by Respondents No. 1 to
5, an award was passed against Respondent Nos. 6&7. Since the
award amount was not paid, execution proceedings were initiated
against the Respondent Nos.6&7. It appears that during execution
proceedings, attachment orders in respect of offending vehicle were
passed. At that time, it was brought to the notice of the Claims
Tribunal that the vehicle was re-possessed and sold in auction as
stated above.
3. An order dated 16th August, 2011 was passed by the Claims
Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal also required the concerned
Metropolitan Magistrate to take proceedings for forfeiture of
Superdaginama as also forfeiture of the vehicle with which the
petitioner is not concerned.
4. During the proceedings, an order dated 2nd June, 2012 was passed for
issuance of bailable warrants against the Managing Director of the
Appellant.
5. Orders dated 11th May, 2012 and 2nd June, 2012 passed by the
Claims Tribunal are extracted hereunder:-
"Ex. No. 27/11
11.05.2012
Present: Counsel for decree holder
Counsel for Cholamandalam Investment & finance
Co. with AR
AR of Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co.
is directed to produce the person by whose orders
the court property had been auctioned in violation
of superdaginama submitted to the court of ACMM
by owner of the vehicle without verifying the
particulars thereby guilty of misappropriating the
property of the court and doing amanat mein
khayanat. Managing Director is also directed to
appear in person to explain the conduct of the
official on 28.05.2012."
"Ex. No. 27/11
02.06.2012
Present: Counsel for the decree Holder
Managing Director was to appear in person.
They have chosen not to appear despite directions
communicated through counsel. Issue bailable
warrants in sum of Rs.5,000/- against him to be
served at the responsibility of counsel for
20/07/2012."
6. As I have observed above, superdaginama was not executed by
the petitioner. In any case, the Claims Tribunal had no concern
with superdaginama. Therefore, there was no necessity of the
personal appearance of the petitioner's Managing director or
issuance of bailable warrants against him. Order dated 2nd
June, 2012 is therefore, set aside.
7. The Claims Tribunal shall be at liberty to pass any order against
the petitioner company as may be permissible under law for
which the petitioner shall have appropriate remedy.
8. The petition is allowed in above terms.
10. The petition and CM No. 12031/2012 stand disposed of.
11. Dasti.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JULY 31, 2012
rs
