Disposed

Sakharam Raghunathrao Kulkarni v. H D B Financial Services and Others

Bombay HC20 Aug 2019WP/3329/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the forcible repossession of a hypothecated vehicle by the respondent financier. The High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad noted that the petitioner had already approached the Consumer Forum and that disputed facts regarding notice and quantum of dues required civil court intervention. The court disposed of the writ petition, advising the petitio

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; parties directed to approach Civil Court or other forum for redress.

Sakharam Raghunathrao Kulkarni Vs H D B Financial… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 906-WP3329-18.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3329 OF 2018

¶4

Sakharam S/o Raghunathrao Kulkarni

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

H.D.B. Financial Services and Others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Smt. Sudarshana Nirban and V. B. Bhale, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. M. D. Narwadkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶10

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ

¶11

DATED : 20^th AUGUST, 2019.

¶12

PER COURT :-

¶13

The petitioner has prayed for damages to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/(Rupees Five Lakh only) so also Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards mental torture and Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost.

¶14

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has not followed the proper procedure in repossessing the vehicle of the petitioner. The respondent repossessed the vehicle in high handed manner. The learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner had also filed a complaint in the Kandhar Police Station on 22.05.2017 against the employee of the respondent No. 1. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 ought to have invoked the arbitration proceedings or any other proceedings to recover the amount, but

¶15

1 of 3

¶16

2 906-WP3329-18.doc

¶17

it was not open to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to seize the vehicle forcibly without following due process of law. The learned Counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijayalaxmi in Civil Appeal No. 9711 of 2011 decided on 14.11.2011.

¶18

As per Mr. Narwadkar, the learned Counsel repossession notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.04.2017. Prior to that also notice was issued to pay the amount. The petitioner did not pay. The vehicle was hypotheticated.

¶19

The parties will have to adduce evidence with regard to claim of damages.

¶20

As per the notice amount of Rs. 18,93,759/- (Eighteen Lakh Ninety Three Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Nine only) was outstanding against the petitioner after sale of the vehicle.

¶21

The petitioner had already availed the remedy before the District Consumer Forum. The petitioner did not get relief as the petitioner was not consumer. Further process has already been undertaken. The subject matter of the hypothecation agreement is already sold long back. It was not a case of hire purchase agreement. The machine was hypotheticated with the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It appears that prior to repossession, notice was also given to the petitioner. The petitioner was a defaulter. Whether the notice was properly served upon the petitioner or not and the quantum of the amount due would be disputed questions of facts. This Court would not

¶22

2 of 3

¶23

3 906-WP3329-18.doc

¶24

embark upon the investigation of the disputed questions of facts. The petitioner has remedy available under the law.

¶25

In light of the above, Writ Petition stands disposed of. The petitioner may avail the remedy as may be available before the Civil Court or any other forum.

¶26

In case, if petitioner approaches the Civil Court, all contentions are kept open.

¶27

( MANGESH S. PATIL ) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶28

P.S.B.

¶29

3 of 3

Sakharam Raghunathrao Kulkarni v. H D B Financial Services and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakharam Raghunathrao Kulkarni v. H D B Financial Services and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chikhali Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. Ashti through Chairman Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajkumar Parshuram Yesalwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Navnath Sheshrao Vetal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amalner Municipal Council Amalner through Councilor Kumar Ramkrushina Bapurao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Arvind Amarchand Mishra and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhalchandra Lala Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others