Allowed

Sri Tirumalesh Desai v. Primary Agricultural Co. Operative Society Ltd.

Karnataka HC11 Dec 2023WP/1190/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an arbitrary seizure of a petitioner's vehicle for a loan the bank did not directly extend to him, declaring the act illegal and directing its release, while also directing an enquiry into alleged police interference.

What did the court decide?

Directions to release the seized vehicle forthwith to the petitioner and to enquire into the complaint regarding police interference.

Sri Tirumalesh Desai Vs Primary… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:45394 WP No. 1190 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO.1190 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. TIRUMALESH DESAI, S/O DAYANAND DESAI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.304, A BLOCK, 3^RD FLOOR, UNIQUE CONCORD APARTMENT, LKR MAIN ROAD, TATANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 094.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH M.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

Digitally signed by VALLI M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

AND:

¶12

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., BANAKAL VILLAGE AND POST, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 113, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶13

SURABHI RAGHU, W/O RAGHU.B.S, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT MATHIKATTE ROAD, BANAKAL, MUDIGERE TALUK,

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:45394 WP No. 1190 of 2022

¶15

BALUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 113.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. SHASHANK S. GOWDA FOR SMT. GEETA RAJ.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. MOHAN R.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.14.9.2021 AS VOID AND CONSEQUENTLY DECLARE THE HIGH HANDED ACT OF IMPOUNDING THE TATA HEXA XM VEHICLE BEARING KA 04 MU 7996 BY THE R-1 PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DTD.14.9.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY THE R-1 AS ILLEGAL AND ETC.,

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is challenging the letter of Authority to seize the vehicle at Annexure-D dated 14.09.2021, issued by the respondent No.1 and seeks to quash the same wherein, a vehicle bearing No.KA-04 MU-7996 has been seized.

¶22

The petitioner has purchased TATA HEXA XM vehicle bearing No.KA-04 MU-7996 from registered dealer Prerana Motors Private Limited, Rajajinagar, Bangalore by

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45394 WP No. 1190 of 2022

¶24

paying a sum of Rs.17,07,601/- and the vehicle has been registered. The invoice issued by Prerana Motors Private Limited stands in the name of petitioner. The registration Certificate in respect of vehicle issued by the Transport Department reflects the petitioner as owner of the vehicle.

¶25

Sri. Srikanth.M., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not raised any loan from the respondent No.1 and seizure of the vehicle for non-payment of the loan by the respondent No.1, is arbitrary and illegal.

¶26

Sri. Shashank S. Gowda, learned counsel for

¶27

the respondent No.1, submits that the loan for purchase of the vehicle was sanctioned by respondent No.2. The petitioner in collusion with Prerana Motors Limited registered the vehicle in his name instead in the name of respondent No.2. The said vehicle has been hypothecated in favour of respondent No.1. Hence, seizure of the vehicle for non payment of the loan is justified.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:45394 WP No. 1190 of 2022

¶30

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that petitioner was her colleague. As the petitioner was not entitled for loan, he requested the respondent No.2, to raise loan for purchase of the vehicle, on the condition that he would repay the loan amount.

¶31

Further submits that the petitioner instead of getting the vehicle registered in her name in collusion with Prerana Motors Limited, the dealer of the vehicle, registered the vehicle in his name in a fraudulent manner. As respondent No.1 was proceeding against her for recovery of loan amount, she has paid entire outstanding loan amount pending with the respondent No.1 and she is entitled for release of vehicle to recover dues from the petitioner. It is not disputed by the petitioner that entire outstanding amount has been paid as on date by the respondent No.2.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the submission that entire loan amount has been discharged by respondent No.2.

¶33

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:45394 WP No. 1190 of 2022

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶35

respondents.

¶36

Invoice for purchase of the disputed vehicle issued by Prerana Motors Private limited, at Annexure-A stands in the name of the petitioner. The Registration Certificate at Annexure-B reflects petitioner as the registered owner.

¶37

Respondent No.1 has not placed any material to substantiate that loan was issued in favour of the petitioner.

¶38

When the invoice and the registration certificate of the vehicle stands in the name of petitioner merely because the respondent No.2 made a statement that the loan amount was given to the petitioner for purchase of the vehicle, it is not open to the respondent No.1 to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of the loan and to the extent of seizing vehicle. There is no contract of finance between the petitioner and respondent No.1.

¶39

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:45394 WP No. 1190 of 2022

¶40

Though the counsel for respondent No.1, submits that the vehicle in question is hypothecated in favour of respondent No.1, when the loan was not granted by respondent No.1, in favour of the petitioner, the hypothecation of the vehicle owned by the petitioner with the respondent No.1 is doubtful.

¶41

As no document has been placed by the respondent No.1 to demonstrate that the loan was extended in favour of the petitioner, merely on the basis of B Register Extract downloaded from the website of Transport Department reflecting hypothecation in favour of the respondents, prima facie not acceptable. The action of the seizure of the vehicle by respondent No.1 is not only incorrect but also illegal and arbitrary.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the illegal seizure of the vehicle by respondent No.1 was due interference of Inspector of Police of Kodigehalli Police Station. The complaint against the Inspector of Police has

¶43

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:45394 WP No. 1190 of 2022

¶44

been filed with the Commissioner of Police as per Annexure - J. No action has been taken pursuant to the complaint by the Commissioner of Police regarding high-handed action of the Inspector of Police. Hence, prays for necessary direction to consider the complaint dated 20.12.2021 at Annexure - J.

¶45

On overall appreciation of the facts and circumstances in the present case, the Deputy Commissioner of Police having jurisdiction over the Kodigehalli Police Station is to be directed to consider the complaint at Annexure - J in accordance with law.

¶46

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the

¶47

following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

Writ petition is allowed.

¶50

Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to release the vehicle forthwith in favour of the petitioner in the same condition as it was seized.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2023:KHC:45394 WP No. 1190 of 2022

¶53

Deputy Commissioner of Police having jurisdiction over Kodigehalli Police Station is directed to enquire into the complaint at Annexure-J.

¶54

This order will not come in the way of respondent No.2 initiating any proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law to recover any sum, if due.

¶55

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the DCP, having jurisdiction over Kodigehalli, police station.

¶56

No order as to costs.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sri Tirumalesh Desai v. Primary Agricultural Co. Operative Society Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Tirumalesh Desai v. Primary Agricultural Co. Operative Society Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sangamesha Denim Point Vs Union of India

Sri. M G Vijaya Kumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

P v Prakash Vs Smt Drakshayanamma

M/S Sri Maruthi Builders Engineers and Contractors Vs South Western Railways

S Chidananda Vs State of Karnataka

B C Srinivas Vs Deputy Conservator of Forest