Jojo George vs The Sub Inspector Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 21661 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
  TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 21109 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          JOJO GEORGE
          S/O. GEORGE, POKKATH HOUSE, ERUMATHALA, CHOONDY,
          ALUVA - 683 112.
          BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
          KASABA POLICE STATION, KANJIKODE P.O., PALAKKAD -
          678 621.
    2     NAZAR
          S/O. JAMEELA, PULINCHODU HOUSE, KANJIKODE P.O.,
          PUTHUSSERY, PALAKKAD - 678 621.
    3     SARAN KRISHNA @ SARAVANAN
          EXECUTIVE, MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES
          LTD., CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001.
          BY ADVS.
          SAIJO HASSAN
          DEVAPRASANTH.P.J.
          BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
          RAFEEK. V.K.
          P.PARVATHY
          NAZRIN HALLAJ
          NASEEBA K.T.
          LAKSHMINARAYAN.R
          AKHILESH S.
          NEERAJA.G
          ASHA JYOTHY
          SUMI S.THOMAS
                                         2
W.P.(C)No. 21109 of 2021




              SRI.E C.BINEESH - GP



       THIS     WRIT       PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION      ON    02.11.2021,      THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  3
W.P.(C)No. 21109 of 2021




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2021.

The petitioner says that he had agreed to purchase

a Goods Vehicle, bearing registration No. KL-9AR-5261,

from the 2nd respondent through Ext.P1 and that on the

strength of its terms, is now operating it.

2. The petitioner concedes that, as per Ext.P1, he

had taken upon the obligation to pay the loan liability on

the vehicle, which the 2nd respondent had availed of from

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. ("Financial institution" for

short hereinafter); but that on account of the Covid-19

pandemic scenario, some of the installments had been

defaulted. He asserts that he is ready and willing to

settle the entire amount with the Financial Institution,

but that in the meanwhile, they, in collaboration with the

2nd respondent, is attempting to seize the vehicle illegally,

using force, and causing obstruction to its service being

run by him.

W.P.(C)No. 21109 of 2021

3. The petitioner, therefore, prays that 1st

respondent to directed to afford adequate and effective

protection to himself and his workers, to operate the

afore mentioned vehicle.

4. Sri.Saijo Hassan - learned counsel for the 2 nd

respondent, affirmed that Ext.P1 agreement had been

entered into by his client with the petitioner, but alleged

that, in flagrant violation of its terms, the latter is

operating the vehicle, but refusing to pay the

installments to the Financial Institution. He, thus prayed

that this writ petition be dismissed.

5. Sri.P.J.Devaprasanth - learned Standing

Counsel for the Financial Institution, submitted that large

amounts are due from the 2nd respondent and that the

arrangement between him and the petitioner is illegal

and made without concurrence of his clients. He

contented that, therefore, his client has full legal

competence to repossess the vehicle, in terms of the loan

agreement.

W.P.(C)No. 21109 of 2021

6. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is

clear that, on one hand, the petitioner admits that he is

obliged to pay off the liability on the vehicle to the

Financial Institution; while on the other, the respondent

says that they have no priority with him. Obviously,

therefore, if the Financial Institution tries to repossess

the vehicle in terms of law and as per the provisions of

the contractual agreement relating to the loan facility

availed of by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner cannot

object to it, normally.

7. That said, however, no action can be allowed to

be taken by the 3rd respondent in violation of law; and to

that extent, petitioner may be justified in seeking relief.

8. Resultantly, I direct the Financial Institution not

to attempt to take over the vehicle using force, but only

in terms of law and after following due procedure, under

the applicable Statutes and Regulations.

9. The 1st respondent - Sub Inspector of Police,

will consequently, ensure that law and order is

W.P.(C)No. 21109 of 2021

maintained and that there is no breach of peace on

account of the internecine disputes between the parties;

but will not interfere in the same in any manner

whatsoever.

This writ petition is thus ordered.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

Raj/02.11.2021.

W.P.(C)No. 21109 of 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21109/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 11.06.2019 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.09.2021.