Partly allowed

M/S. Cholamandalam v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC17 Apr 2013WP(MD)/3297/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking mandamus for release of hypothecated lorry seized by police. Court directed petitioner to approach Revenue Officer with hypothecation documents and directed Officer to dispose of application on merits within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to apply to first respondent with hypothecation documents; first respondent directed to decide application on merits within three weeks.

M/S. Cholamandalam Vs the District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 17.04.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.3297 of 2013

¶7

M/s.Cholamandalam Investments

¶8

and Finance Co., Ltd., rep by its Branch Manager, Mr.Aathimoolam, No.285/B/11, First Floor, Nagaraja Koil Road, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District 629 001.

¶9

: Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli 627 001. 2.The Inspector of Police, Pavoorchathiram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶12

3.C.Mathusoothanan : Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to release the TATA LPT Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-01-X-5922 without any condition on the basis of petitioner's representation dated 11.08.2012.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sankar

¶15

For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.Aaiyram K.Selvakumar

¶16

Government Advocate

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to release the TATA LPT Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-01-X5922, on the basis of his representation dated 11.08.2012.

¶19

The petitioner is a financier. The petitioner advanced money to the third respondent to purchase a lorry. The third respondent hypothecated the lorry in favour of the petitioner. While so, the second respondent seized the vehicle alleging illegal transportation of rice. The vehicle was produced before the first respondent. The petitioner now wanted the first respondent to release the vehicle.

¶20

The learned Government Advocate, on the basis of instructions given by the Revenue Divisional Officer, submitted that it is open to the petitioner to make an application before the first respondent along with documents confirming the hypothecation of vehicle and in case any such application is made, the same will be considered and the issue will be decided on merits.

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

The petitioner is given liberty to make an application before the first respondent for releasing the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-01-X-

¶23

¶24

5922, along with registration certificate and the documents relating to the hypothecation and in case any such application is made, the first respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the same on merits and as per law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of application.

¶25

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶26

Assistant Registrar (CO)

/True Copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

1.The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli 627 001.

¶31

2.The Inspector of Police, Pavoorchathiram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶32

1 CC to Mr.M.Sankar, Advocate in SR.No.22071

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.3297 of 2013 17.04.2013

¶34

GDR 06.05.2013 2P/4C

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S. Cholamandalam v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Cholamandalam v. the District Revenue Officer

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

S. Ganapathy, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Devi Corporation,a Partnership Vs the Superintendent of Police

V. Ponnazhagu, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

V. Soundaravalli Vs the District Collector

M/S. Vasantham Catering, Vs the Senior Divisional

M. Sappani @ Ramasami Servai, Vs Tamil Nadu Water Supply and