Disposed

P.D.Vincent v. S.I of Police, Irinjalakkuda

Kerala HC12 Aug 2010WP(C)/3568/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ for police protection against alleged forcible seizure of hypothecated vehicles by a finance company. Court passed conditional order granting protection if petitioner pays disputed amount, without deciding the quantum of debt.

What did the court decide?

Conditional direction to the police to provide protection against illegal re-possession of vehicles if the petitioner pays Rs. 1.5 Lakhs in two instalments by 30.8.2010 and 30.9.2010.

P.D.Vincent Vs S.I of Police, Irinjalakkuda — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 3568 of 2010(U)

PETITIONER(S):

P.D.VINCENT, S/O.DEVASSYKUTTY, PUTHUKKADAN HOUSE, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

M/S.SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD., NEAR LIC OFFICE, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS.

¶17

ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR FOR R2

¶18

SMT.MOLLY KOSHY FOR R2

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.3568 OF 2010 U

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO.KL.9AG2277.

¶23

EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO.KL-8AB7277.

¶24

EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT MADE IN THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE RELATING TO PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE PETITIONER EVIDENCING ATTACHMENT OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTIES ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.01.2010 SENT BY THE PETITIONE TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

PS to Judge

¶29

K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶30

W.P(C). NO. 3568 OF 2010 U

¶31

Dated this the 12^th August, 2010

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

K.M. Joseph, J.

¶34

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶35

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the 1^st respondent to provide proper and adequate police protection to the petitioner and his crew members for operating the vehicles mentioned in Exts.P1 and P2.

¶36

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the 3^rd respondent to provide effective guidelines to the Police Authorities in the State against forcible seizure of the motor vehicles and other secured assets on behalf of the Scheduled Banks and non banking finance institution.”

¶37

2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

¶38

Petitioner is a contract carriage operator of two vehicles.

¶39

WPC.NO.3568/2010 U

¶40

¶41

The vehicles are hypothecated to the second respondent. Complaint is that the second respondent has authorised goonda elements to forcibly seize the vehicles. Reliance is placed on the decisions mentioned in paragraph 5 of the Writ Petition.

¶42

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the party respondent and also the learned Government Pleader.

¶43

It is undoubtedly the legal position that the financier cannot seize the vehicle without authority of law, ie. by either approaching the arbitral forum or the competent civil court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent that an amount of Rs.13 and odd Lakhs are due from the petitioner. It is also submitted that the second respondent has approached the District Court, Ernakulam and commenced arbitration proceedings and also obtained attachment of the immovable properties of the petitioner and the second respondent has no intention to seize the vehicles of the petitioner bearing registration Nos. KL-8AG-2277 and KL-8AB-7277. We feel

¶44

WPC.NO.3568/2010 U 3

¶45

that a conditional order should be passed. In the circumstances of the case, we direct that if the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.1.5 Lakhs (Rupees One Lakh & Fifty Thousand) to the second respondent in two instalments of Rs.75,000/= each, the first of which shall be payable on or before 30.8.2010 and the further instalment of Rs.75,000/= on or before 30.9.2010, there will be a direction to the first respondent to provide adequate protection to the petitioner against any illegal re-possession of the vehicles by the second respondent. We make it clear that we have not pronounced on the question of the amount due and the Forum shall be free to decide the issue untrammeled by anything contained in this Judgment.

¶46

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶47

Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge

P.D.Vincent v. S.I of Police, Irinjalakkuda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.D.Vincent v. S.I of Police, Irinjalakkuda

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

Bhavani Raman Vs the Supdt of Police

Thomas Jofin Vs State of Kerala

M.J.Sebastian Vs Sub Inspector of Police

P.Murali Vs the Circle Inspector of Police and Ors.

K.Moitheen and Another Vs the Dist. Supdt. of Police, Malappuram

Prince L. Vs State of Kerala and Others