Dismissed

Eram Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Chandrika

Kerala HC3 Nov 2022WA/1527/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ appeal filed by Eram Motors, a vehicle financier. The writ court below had prevented the weighing of a vehicle hypothecation application pending a criminal case. The High Court noted that the hypothecation was already removed before this appeal was filed, rendering the main relief infructuous, but upheld the original direction that forgery allegations do not preclude th

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; original directions of the lower court regarding the financier's rights remained intact.

Eram Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chandrika — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY THURSDAY,THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WA NO. 1527 OF 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.04.2017 IN W.P.(C) 897/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶8

ERAM MOTORS PVT. LTD. KAKKAVAYAL BRANCH, MUTTIL, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673122 REPRESENTED BY MR.SABU, SALES MANAGER IN-CHARGE

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SMT.ASHA BABU SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR SRI.S.M.PRASANTH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 2 & 4:

¶11

1 CHANDRIKA AGED 54 YEARS, W/O. SASIKUMAR, IRUTHILOTTU HOUSE, EACHOME, ANJUKUNNU AMSOM, KAMBALAKKAD, WAYANAD DISTRICT

¶12

2 THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD, PIN-673592

¶13

3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MEENANGADI POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673591

¶14

W.A. No. 1527/2017

¶15

¶16

4 SASIKUMAR P.N. 12/557, IRUTHILOTT HOUSE, ATHIRATHU KUNNU PO, KENICHIRA, POOTHADI, WAYANAD, PIN-673596

¶17

R1 BY SRI. T.M. RAMANKARTHA R2 & R3 BY SRI. TEKCHAND, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A. No. 1527/2017

JUDGMENT

S. Manikumar, C.J.

Before the writ court, the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 897/2017 has sought for the following reliefs:-

¶24

i) Issue a writ of mandamus or an order or direction in its nature to the 1^st Respondent to cancel the endorsement of hypothecation in Exhibit P3 Registration Certificate and return the records of the said vehicle to the Petitioner within a time to be specified by this Hon'ble Court;

¶25

ii) Issue a writ of prohibition or an order in its nature restraining Respondents 1 and 2 from taking possession of the Mahindra XUV-500 W8 vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-73-A-3005 from the petitioner;

¶26

After considering the rival submissions, vide

¶27

judgment dated 05.04.2017 in W.P.(C.) No. 897/2017, writ court ordered thus:-

¶28

“In the said view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to take a decision on the application preferred by the petitioner for cancellation of the endorsement in the certificate of registration of the vehicle bearing No. KL-73A-

¶29

W.A. No. 1527/2017

¶30

¶31

3005, after notice to the petitioner as also the financier. The application shall be considered notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal case instituted by the fourth respondent. This shall be done within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that this judgment will not preclude the third respondent or the fourth respondent proceeding against the petitioner and her assets for realising the loss, if any, caused to them on account of the alleged forgery committed by the petitioner.”

¶32

On 01.11.2022, when writ appeal came up for hearing, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that endorsement of hypothecation has been removed as early as on 12.05.2017. Writ appeal has been filed on 22.05.2017. Having regard to the above submission, prima facie we observed that the writ appeal itself has become infructuous.

¶33

However, perusal of the directions issued, extracted supra, shows that the writ court has made it clear that the judgment dated 05.04.2017 in W.P.(C.) No. 897/2017 will not preclude the third respondent (the appellant) or the fourth respondent proceeding against the petitioner and her assets for realising the loss, if any, caused to them on account of the alleged forgery committed by the

¶34

W.A. No. 1527/2017

¶35

¶36

petitioner. The said directions would remain intact. Circumstances being so, we do not think anything remains to be considered in the appeal on its merit.

¶37

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed, with the above observations.

¶38

sd/-

¶39

S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY

JUDGE

DCS/03.11.2022

Eram Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Chandrika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eram Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Chandrika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.v.Anil, Vs State of Kerala

Regional Transport Officer Vs Sumesh

Sakeer Hussain Vs State of Kerala

Dharmanilayam Charitable Society Vs Union of India

Kandyan Aneesh, Vs the Secretary, Thalassery Municipality

Chalil Kollankandy Shajith, Vs the Secretary, Thalassery Municipality