Dismissed

M/S. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. Aurangaba through Yogesh Krushnarao Naik v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC16 Oct 2023WP/305/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition filed by a finance company challenging an order that awarded custody of a seized tractor to its registered owner based on a theft complaint. The court held the order was legal and no interference was required.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no interference in the lower court orders awarding custody to the registered owner.

M/S. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

13-WP-305-2023.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.305 OF 2023

¶4

M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LTD.
AURANGABAD THROUGH YOGESH KRUSHNARAO NAIK

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶7

...

¶8

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. A. G. Vasmatkar
APP for Respondents: Mrs. G. L. Deshpande

¶9

...

¶10

CORAM:R.M. JOSHI, J

¶11

DATE:OCTOBER 16, 2023

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

1.This Petition takes exception to the order
dated 13.01.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Newasa in Criminal Revision Application No.
01/2020 upholding order below Exh. 1 dated 12.11.2019
passed by learned CJM in Criminal M.A. No. 318/2019
whereby the custody of the tractor in question was
given to the registered owner.

¶14

2.Petitioner is a finance company and the

¶15

Respondent No. 2 has obtained loan for purchase of the
tractor bearing no. MH-17-BX-1668. Loan agreement is
executed between the parties and a sum of Rs.

¶16

5,08,287/- was advanced as loan to the Respondent No.
2. Respondent No. 2 filed report with concerned police
station about the theft of said tractor. In connection

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

13-WP-305-2023.odt

¶19

with the said crime, tractor was seized by police. An
application was moved by Respondent No. 2 before the
concerned Court for seeking possession of the tractor.
By order dated 12.11.2019, the custody of the tractor
was directed to be handed over to the Respondent No. 2.
Present Petitioner being aggrieved by the said order
moved an application before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, which came to be turned down.

¶20

3.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits

¶21

that admittedly there is loan agreement and the tractor
in question is hypothicated with the Petitioner
company. It is his submission that under the said
agreement Petitioner is entitled to seek repossession
of the tractor in the event borrower fails to repay the

¶22

loan. In this regard, he has drawn attention of the
Court to clause nos. 11 and 12 of the agreement. It his
submission that in spite of order of the Court borrower
is not taking possession of the tractor and the same is
lying in the premises of concerned police station and
is likely to become worthless.

¶23

4.There is no dispute about the fact that this
is not the case wherein the tractor is repossessed by

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

13-WP-305-2023.odt

¶26

the Petitioner – finance company in accordance with
agreement for the reason that the Respondent No. 2 has
failed to repay loan. It is the owner of tractor who
has sought custody of the tractor on the basis of
complaint of theft lodged by him. It being so, there is
no question of handing over of possession of the
tractor by the concerned Court to any other person than
the registered owner of the vehicle.

¶27

5.This Petition is filed taking exception to the
order of JMFC and its confirmation in Revision by
learned Additional Sessions Judge. Thus, it becomes
immaterial as to whether Petitioner herein would have
right of repossession of vehicle or not. The issue
before this Court is as to whether impugned judgments
are legal and proper. Suffice it to say that the
direction issued by the concerned Magistrate of
allowing registered owner to take possession of the
vehicle and confirmation of said order by Revisional
Court is perfectly legal. No interference, therefore,
is called for therein. Consequently, Petition stands
dismissed.

¶28

Malani

¶29

Page 3 of 3

M/S. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. Aurangaba through Yogesh Krushnarao Naik v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. Aurangaba through Yogesh Krushnarao Naik v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Hanumant Mali and Others Vs Manisha W/O. Sachin Mali

Ganesh Anil Kusumude and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Purushottam Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ratan Seva Pawar Vs Rajiv Gandhi Sahakari Pathsanstha, Branch Kaudgaon through Its Member Shivaji Bhaskar Waman

Harish @ Harichandra Baburao Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shailesh Jagannath Pankhade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another