Madras High Court
Tvs Credit Services Ltd vs The Transport Commissioner on 29 April, 2022
Author: V.M.Velumani
Bench: V.M.Velumani
W.P.No.16280 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P.No.16280 of 2021
TVS Credit Services Ltd.,
Rep. By its Authorised Signatory S.V.Jayprakkash,
Having registered office at
No.29, Third Floor, Jayalakshmi Estates,
Haddows Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 006. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Transport Commissioner,
Transport Department,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005.
2.The Regional Transport Officer,
Coimbatore (South),
Coimbatore 641 004.
3.Mr.Jaganathan,
Proprietor M/s.Orange Associates.
4.Mr.Karthick,
M/s.Sri Mageswari Associates.
5.Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Coimbatore.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16280 of 2021
6.Inspector of Police,
RS Puram Police Station,
Coimbatore. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, calling for the records relating to
the vehicle Nos.TN72AH8559, TN51P8197, TN39AY4178, TN39BY4042,
TN47AE0027, TN38BP6768, TN38CJ0333 & TN37CF7276 lying with the
respondents 1 and 2 and issue appropriate directions to the respondents 1 and
2 to register the name of the customers listed herein above as owners with a
hypothecation endorsement in favour of the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Arunachalam
For RR1,2,5 & 6 : Mr.U.Baranidharan
(Additional Government Pleader)
For R3 : Mr.D.Veerasekaran
For R4 : Mr.M.Senthilkumaran
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner calling for the records relating to the vehicle Nos.TN72AH8559, TN51P8197, TN39AY4178, TN39BY4042, TN47AE0027, TN38BP6768, TN38CJ0333 & TN37CF7276 lying with the respondents 1 and 2 and issue appropriate directions to the 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16280 of 2021 respondents 1 and 2 to register the name of the customers listed above as owners with a hypothecation endorsement in favour of the petitioner.
2.According to the petitioner, their Company is NBFC registered under the Companies Act and governed by Reserve Bank of India and they are into the business of extending various types of loans to its prospective customers, including the vehicle loans. During the course of its business, the petitioner Company appointed various direct sales agents in order to get sourcing business for the prospective end customers. The petitioner entered into an agreement dated 07.11.2012 with the 3rd respondent, as one of their sourcing agent. The most important condition in the said agreement is that 3rd respondent has to identify the prospective purchasers and furnish the details to the petitioner. The petitioner will get loan for purchase of vehicles through the 3rd respondent, who in turn will pay the amount, get the vehicles registered in the name of the purchasers with hypothecation endorsement in favour of the petitioner. At the request of the 3 rd respondent, the petitioner sanctioned following 13 loans for the vehicles mentioned therein. 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16280 of 2021 S.No Agreement No. Borrower Name Registration No.
1. TN3003CA0005410 Muthukumar Sakthivel TN45BB8115
2. TN3003CA0005597 Krishnakumar Gurusamy TN72AH8559
3. TN3003CA0005600 Swamy M P TN51P8197
4. TN3003CA0005609 Pradeep Babu D TN39AY4178
5. TN3003CA0005610 Balachandran P TN39BY4042
6. TN3003CA0005621 Nithya T TN47AE0027
7. TN3003CA0005626 Prasath A TN02AV0165
8. TN3003CA0005687 Rangaramakrishnan B TN37DZ4455
9. TN3003CA0005810 Srinivasan N TN21AF7722
10. TN3003CA0005884 Tresa Sugirtha J TN38BP6768
11. TN3003CA0006180 Rammanoj S TN38CJ0333
12. TN3003CA0006189 Selvaraj S TN37CF7276
13. TN3003CA0006489 Sundar Rajan P TN31AJ6235 The 3rd respondent, after receiving the loan amount, did not register the vehicles with endorsement of hypothecation in favour of the petitioner. On verification, the petitioner found that the 3 rd respondent has pledged Registration Certificates with the 4th respondent and some other individuals and availed loans. The petitioner has given complaint to the Inspector of Police, RS Puram Police Station, Coimbatore, against the respondents 3 and 4 and the said Police has not acted upon the complaint. The petitioner has given a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore and also filed private complaint under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Coimbatore, against the respondents 3 and 4. In such circumstances, 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16280 of 2021 the petitioner has given a letter dated 24.07.2019 to the 2nd respondent to blacklist name transfer in respect of the 13 vehicles mentioned above in order to save the security which was hypothecated by the respective 13 customers. During pendency of the above complaint, the petitioner Company, on its own action, recovered original RC books of 4 customers and handed over the same to the following 4 customers:
S.No Agreement No. Borrower Name Registration No.
1. TN3003CA0005410 Muthukumar Sakthivel TN45BB8115
2. TN3003CA0005687 Rangaramakrishnan B TN37DZ4455
3. TN3003CA0005810 Srinivasan N TN21AF7722
4. TN3003CA0006489 Sundar Rajan P TN31AJ6235 and vehicle belonging to one customer by name A.Prasath was settled by the customer himself. One more customer by name Tresa Sugirtha had surrendered the vehicle for non-payment of dues and for non-availability of the original RC book. The relevant RC books regarding the balance 7 contracts are still with the 3rd respondent, who had never taken any steps till today to make name transfer with the RTO records and also did not create hypothecation endorsement in favour of the petitioner. The 2 nd respondent enquired only with the petitioner and did not enquire the 3rd respondent and hence, the petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.1761 of 2019 on the file of the 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16280 of 2021 Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, which is pending adjudication and hence, prayed for allowing the Writ Petition.
3.The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit. Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1, 2, 5 and 6 submitted that on receiving the letter of the petitioner to blacklist the registration of the vehicles mentioned therein, the 2nd respondent enquired with the petitioner and verified the documents. The list given by the petitioner was verified and 2nd respondent found that registration particulars of the vehicles mentioned in the said letter does not reflect the sale and hypothecation transactions as claimed by the petitioner. In view of the same, the 2nd respondent, by letter dated 13.12.2019, informed the petitioner about the rejection of his request to blacklist the above 13 vehicles. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that when the required documents are filed for transfer, the 2nd respondent cannot refuse to register the vehicles. As per the agreement between the petitioner and 3rd respondent, there is a provision for arbitration. The petitioner, without initiating any such proceedings and also pending suit filed by the petitioner, has come out with 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16280 of 2021 the present Writ Petition, which is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4.The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit and denied all the averments made by the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent submitted that the 3rd respondent pledged the vehicles with 4th respondent and borrowed money. The 3rd respondent did not repay the amounts borrowed and 4th respondent came to know that 3rd respondent availed similar loans from others and committed default. The 4th respondent also filed four suits against the 3rd respondent and his brother-in-law viz., Suresh for recovery of money and has also complained to the Police. The Manager of the petitioner's Company by name Vaidyanathan stood as a guarantor of chit transaction of 3rd respondent and his brother-in-law viz., Suresh. The attitude of the Manager of the petitioner is suspicious. The 4th respondent has given complaint to the Police and investigation is pending and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
7/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16280 of 2021
5.The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit and denied all the averments made by the petitioner. According to the 3rd respondent, the main dispute is between the private parties. The 4th respondent, who was carrying on business in the name and style “Sri Maheswari Associates” gave money through account to develop the business of the 3rd respondent without any sureties by obtaining signatory in the empty promissory note, cheques & vouchers. He started to press the 3rd respondent to return the money with interest of 36%. On 26.04.2019, the 4th respondent came to the office of the 3rd respondent and took several R.C books which are mentioned by the petitioner herein. Thereafter, the 4th respondent promised him to release the R.C. Books after executing any property to the worth of money given by him. Hence, on 10.05.2019, the 3rd respondent settled the property of his mother-in-law in favour of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent failed to keep up the promise and did not return the R.C. Books, but filed civil suits and criminal cases against the 3rd respondent. The dispute against the private parties is to be adjudicated only before the Trial Court and hence, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the same. 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16280 of 2021
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1, 2, 5 & 6 as well as the learned counsels appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and perused the entire materials available on record.
7.It is the case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent is the District dealer of the petitioner, appointed to procure the prospective purchasers of used vehicles. On furnishing details of the said purchasers, the petitioner will sanction the loan to the 3rd respondent, who will register the vehicle in the name of the customers with hypothecation endorsement in favour of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent furnished details of 13 prospective purchasers and vehicle numbers. The petitioner sanctioned the loans and paid the amounts to the 3rd respondent, but the 3rd respondent did not register the vehicles with endorsement of hypothecation in favour of the petitioner and did not submit the Registration Certificates to the petitioner. In view of the same, the petitioner gave a letter dated 24.07.2019 to the 2nd respondent to blacklist the vehicles and not to register the said vehicles. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the 2 nd respondent did not properly 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16280 of 2021 enquire the matter and did not take proper action on the letter given by the petitioner. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit and stated on oath that enquiry was conducted on the letter given by the petitioner and it was found that the registration particulars of vehicles mentioned in the said letter does not reflect the same as hypothecation transaction as claimed by the petitioner and 2nd respondent informed the same to the petitioner by his letter dated 13.12.2019, rejecting the request of the petitioner to blacklist the vehicles. These contentions are not disputed by the petitioner. Further, it is seen that the 4th respondent, in whose favour the 3rd respondent pledged the RC books and relevant transfer forms as admitted by the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4, has initiated both Civil and Criminal proceedings against the 3rd respondent and his brother-in-law viz., Suresh. Further, the contention of the 4th respondent that petitioner's Manager by name Vaidyanathan stood as a guarantor in chit transaction of 3rd respondent and his brother-in-law Suresh is denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who submitted that there is no supporting documents to the said claim. Considering the contention of the 2nd respondent that proper enquiry was conducted, request of the petitioner for blacklisting the vehicles 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16280 of 2021 in question were rejected and the pendency of both Civil and Criminal cases initiated by both the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief now sought for in the present Writ Petition.
In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
29.04.2022 Index : Yes / No gsa To
1.The Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
2.The Regional Transport Officer, Coimbatore (South), Coimbatore 641 004.
3.Mr.Jaganathan, Proprietor M/s.Orange Associates.
4.Mr.Karthick, M/s.Sri Mageswari Associates.
5.Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Coimbatore.
11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16280 of 2021 V.M.VELUMANI, J., gsa
6.Inspector of Police, RS Puram Police Station, Coimbatore.
W.P.No.16280 of 2021
29.04.2022 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis