Zoom Car India Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 11999 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 11999 Ker
Judgement Date : 13 April, 2021

Kerala High Court

Zoom Car India Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 13 April, 2021

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

   TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1943

                      WP(C).No.8616 OF 2021(B)


PETITIONER :

               ZOOM CAR INDIA PVT. LTD.,
               UNIT NOS.701 TO 717, 7TH FLOOR,
               TOWER B, DIAMOND DISTRICT, NO.150,
               AIRPORT ROAD, KODIHALLI, BANGALORE,
               KARNATAKA-560 008, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSOCIATE
               BUSINESS MANAGER, HATHIM ABDUL RASHEED.

               BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

RESPONDENTS :

      1        STATE OF KERALA,
               REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARY,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

      2        COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
               ERNAKULAM CITY POLICE, ERNAKULAM-682 035.

      3        STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
               HARBOUR CRIME POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM CITY
               POLICE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-682 003.

               BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.S.L.SYLAJA


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.8616 OF 2021(B)

                                    2




                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13th day of April 2021

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 3 rd respondent on

20.02.2021 and a Crime No.90/2021 has been registered by the 3 rd

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 3 rd respondent is insisting upon

the Managing Director to appear before the 3 rd respondent to collect

the vehicle. It is submitted that as a legal entity, the first respondent WP(C).No.8616 OF 2021(B)

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.

WP(C).No.8616 OF 2021(B)

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 3 rd

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 WP(C).No.8616 OF 2021(B)

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.