The High Court set aside orders refusing the petitioner's application for the return of a seized truck. The Court directed the Magistrate to consider evidence of the loan and hypothecation before deciding custody.
Impugned orders setting aside; petitioner to produce documents; Magistrate to pass appropriate orders after hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
1076.2011 CWP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1076 OF 2011
L & T Finance Ltd., PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & another RESPONDENTS
Shri M.D. Narwadkar, Advocate for petitioner Shri N.B. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent No. 1/ State Shri A.P. Baraskar, Advocate for respondent No. 2
CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J.
DATED : 13th March, 2012.
PER COURT :
2
1076.2011 CWP
3
1076.2011 CWP
this application for return of the truck to the respondent No. 2, on the ground that the said truck was purchased during the period of commission of the offence registered at the instance of said bank, and the tempo/ truck was seized for recovery of misappropriated amount. The respondent No. 2 did not assail this order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Georai before any appellate forum.
4
1076.2011 CWP
commenting on the specific contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the loan agreement and consequently hypothecation of the said truck. Learned Magistrate declined to return the said vehicle, on the ground that subsequent application filed by the petitioner was not tenable and it was not proper to handover the custody of the vehicle unless misappropriated amount was recovered.
5
1076.2011 CWP
Aurangabad; and this Court in exercise of ordinary Original Civil jurisdiction in Arbitration Petition No. 963/2011 had appointed the petitioner as a Court receiver to take possession of the property under loan-cum-hypothecation agreement between petitioner and respondent No. 2, vide order dated 11/10/2011. It appears that this order was passed after the impugned order, and the fact of payment made towards the price of the truck through said cheque issued by the petitioner, in favour of the dealer was not placed before the learned Magistrate. These facts need to be taken into account for passing orders under Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by the concerned Magistrate. Hence order,
ORDER
[i] Orders dated 6/7/2011 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Georai in Misc. Criminal Application No. 236/2011, and the order dated 4/10/2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Criminal Revision Application No. 69/2011 are set aside.
[ii] The petitioner shall place before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Georai, all such relevant
6
1076.2011 CWP
material including the order passed by this Court in Arbitration Petition No. 963/2011 on 11/10/2011. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Georai shall consider all such material place before it, and pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties in accordance with law in Misc. Criminal Application No. 236/2011.
[iii] Parties in Misc. Criminal Application No. 236/2011 shall appear before learned Magistrate on 26/3/2011. Application shall be disposed off preferably within four weeks from the date of appearance of the parties.
. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1076/2011 stands disposed off accordingly.
( U.D. SALVI, J. )
SDM* MARCH-2012
1 issue framed by the court
Whether orders refusing to hand over the custody of a seized hypothecated vehicle to the finance company ought to be set aside.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
L & T Finance Ltd.
The State of Maharashtra
U.D. SALVI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
