Manappuram Finance Pvt. Ltd vs Rajesh E V
2024 Latest Caselaw 30499 Ker

Kerala High Court

Manappuram Finance Pvt. Ltd vs Rajesh E V on 25 October, 2024

Author: V.G.Arun

Bench: V.G.Arun

                                                       2024:KER:79719


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

        FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024/3RD KARTHIKA, 1946

                       WP(C) NO. 37230 OF 2024



PETITIONER:

            MANAPPURAM FINANCE PVT. LTD
            MANAPPURAM FINANCE PVT. LTD.
            HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT IV/470A-OLD,
            W638A-NEW, MANAPPURAM HOUSE, VALAPAD,
            THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA-680567
            REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
            MR.ANTONY STANSLAWAUS, PIN - 680567

            BY ADVS.
            ANTONY SHYJU
            H.NUJUMUDEEN
            NITHISH R. PILLAI
            SHERIN ACHU NINAN
            AFNAS MEERAN




RESPONDENTS:

    1       RAJESH E V
            EDATHIL HOUSE, PACHENI, PARIYARAM
            KANNUR, PIN - 670502

    2       DISTRICT COLLECTOR
            CIVIL STATION, COLLECTRATE ROAD,
            KANNUR 670002, PIN - 670002

    3       DEPUTY COLLECTOR
            CIVIL STATION, COLLECTRATE ROAD,
            KANNUR, PIN - 670002
 WP(C) NO. 37230 OF 2024
                                  2
                                                    2024:KER:79719


     4      THE VILLAGE OFFICER
            PARIYARAM VILLAGE OFFICE, PARIYARAM
            KANNUR, PIN - 680721

            SRI. SUNILKUMAR KURIAKOSE, SR. GP.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 37230 OF 2024
                                        3
                                                                       2024:KER:79719




                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of October, 2024

The petitioner, a non-banking finance company,

is assailing the attachment effected over the vehicle of

the 1st respondent, which is hypothecated with the

petitioner. According to the petitioner, the attachment

effected, without putting the petitioner on notice, is

unsustainable.

2. Heard, learned Counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader.

3. Admittedly, the 1st petitioner is the

owner of the vehicle and it has been attached for failure

to remit General Sales Tax (GST) due to the

Government. As such, the attachment cannot be

challenged by filing a writ petition under Article 226.

The writ petition is hence closed, without

prejudice to the petitioner's right to approach the WP(C) NO. 37230 OF 2024

2024:KER:79719

competent authority under the General Sales Tax Act or

any other competent forum/court.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE ARK WP(C) NO. 37230 OF 2024

2024:KER:79719

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37230/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN CUM HYPOTHECATION AGREEMENT DATED 07.04.2023 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE VEHICLE DETAILS UPLOADED IN PARIVAHAN PRETAINING TO THE VEHICLE MARUTI SWIFT CAR BEARING REG NO. KL60H0696

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 08/08/2024 PREPARED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19/08/24