Jince J Thayil vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 20511 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 753 OF 2020
PETITIONER:

            JINCE J THAYIL
            AGED 47 YEARS
            S/O.JOSEPH, THAYIL HOUSE, TEEKOY, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM-
            686580.

            BY ADVS.
            PAUL K.VARGHESE
            K.P.S.JALALUDDEEN MOHMMED



RESPONDENTS:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    2       THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
            KOTTAYAM-686002.

    3       THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
            PALLICKATHODU POLICE STATION, PALLICKATHODU, KOTTAYAM-
            686503.

    4       ABRAHAM CHACKO,
            REGIONAL MANAGER, M/S.CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND
            FINANCE COMPANY LTD., PULICKAL TOWER, PALA-PONKUNNAM
            ROAD, PALA, KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686575.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN


            SRI E C BINEESH - GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 753 OF 2020
                                    2



                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner concedes that he had availed of a financial

facility from the Cholamandalam Investment and Finance

Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Company" for short), of

which the 4th respondent is the Regional Manager; and alleges that

even though they have been paying the monthly instalments on it

without fail, the said 4th respondent is attempting to repossess the

vehicle using force and with the aid of certain hired mercenaries.

2. The petitioner says that he, therefore, preferred Ext.P1

complaint before the 3rd respondent seeking protection; but that

since no action was taken thereon, he has been constrained to

approach this Court through this writ petition seeking necessary

reliefs.

3. Sri.Binoy Vasudevan - learned counsel appearing for

the 4th respondent, submitted that every allegation made by the

petitioner against his client in this writ petition are wrong and

that no attempt has been made by his client to repossess the WP(C) NO. 753 OF 2020

vehicle using force or through other extra constitutional methods.

He added that, as is evident from Exts.R4(e) and R4(f), his client

has approached a competent Arbitrator appointed, as per the

provisions of the loan agreement and that an Award has been

issued - which led to an Advocate by name Sri.R.Rahul to be

appointed to take possession of the vehicle. He submitted that,

therefore, the allegations of the petitioner, that the vehicle is

being attempted to be repossessed using illegal means, are

completely incorrect and that it is, in fact, he who is now acting

without any respect for law.

4. In reply, Sri.Paul.K.Varghese - learned counsel for the

petitioner, submitted that Ext.R4(e) Award of the Arbitrator is an

ex parte one and his client intends to invoke necessary remedies

against the same.

5. Even when I hear Sri.Paul.K.Varghese afore, the fact

remains that the petitioner can have any cause before this Court

in a "police protection" jurisdiction, only if he is able to establish

that the repossession of the vehicle is being attempted by the 4th WP(C) NO. 753 OF 2020

respondent or by the Company, in violation of law.

6. However, the documents produced on record by the 4 th

respondent clearly show that they have taken recourse to law and

that certain orders have been issued for repossessing the vehicle.

In the afore circumstances, I cannot find any cause for the

petitioner and therefore, close this writ petition without issuing

any orders as prayed for; however, directing the 3 rd respondent to

conduct himself as per law and not to violate it in any manner,

while he acts under the various orders, which he claims to have

obtained.

Needless to say, I leave open every contention of the

petitioner with respect to the merits of Ext. R4(e) Arbitration

Award and make it clear that nothing I have observed in this

judgment will fetter or trammel his rights while he does so.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS/01/10/2021 WP(C) NO. 753 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 753/2020

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM DATED 7.1.2020.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING EXT.P1 COMPLAINT ON 7.1.2020.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR SANCTIONING LOAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT R4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE COMPANY

EXHIBIT R4(d) TRUE OPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE DISPATCH OF THE NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER AS WELL AS THE GUARANTOR

EXHIBIT R4(e) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE ARBITRATOR

EXHIBIT R4(f) TRUE COPY OF THE WARRANT ISSUED TO THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER BY THE DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM