Suryapal Singh vs Siddha Vinayak Motors And Ors on 19 October, 2011
"6. .........Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently in Suryapal Singh v.
Siddha Vinayak Motors and Anr., II (2012) CPJ 8 (SC) held :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.34 seconds)Sardar Trilok Singh And Ors. vs Satya Deo Tripathi on 11 January, 1979
"Under the Hire Purchase Agreement, it is the financier who is the
owner of the vehicle and the person who takes the loan retain the vehicle
only as a bailee / trustee, therefore, taking possession of the vehicle on the
ground of non-payment of instalment has always been upheld to be a
legal right of the financier. This Court vide its judgment in Trilok
Singh & Ors. v. Satya Deo Tripathi, AIR 1979 SC 850, has
categorically held that under the Hire Purchase Agreement, the financier
is real owner of the vehicle, therefore, there cannot be any allegation
against him for having the possession of the vehicle.
Jagdish Chandra Nijhawan vs S.K.Saraf - on 27 November, 1998
This view was again
reiterated in K.A. Mathai @ Babu & Anr. v. Kora Bibbikutty &
Anr., 1996 (7) SCC 212; Jagdish Chandra Nijhawan v. S.K. Saraf,
IX (1998) SLT 477 = IV (1998) CCR 118 (SC) = 1999 (1) SCC 119;
Charanjit Singh Chadha & Ors. v. Sudhir Mehra, VI (2001) SLT
883 = III (2001) CCR 232 (SC) = 2001 (7) SCC 417, following the
earlier judgment of this Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. The State
of Kerala & Anr., AIR 1966 SC 1178; Smt. Lalmuni Devi v. State of
Bihar & Ors., I (2001) SLT 26 = I (2001) CCR 9 (SC) = 2001 (2) SCC
17 and Balwinder Singh v. Asstt. Commissioner, V (2005) SLT 195
= III (2005) CCR 8 (SC) = CCE 2005 (4) SCC 146."
Pramod Kumar Rai vs M/S Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. on 26 July, 2012
In the case of Pramod Kumar Rai v. Shriram Transport Finance
Co. Ltd., III (2012) CPJ 553 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has
observed that Finance Company is well within its right to seize the
vehicle as per the agreement. Hon'ble National Commission has
observed thus :
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. vs Mr. Chaman Lal on 14 September, 2012
In the case of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Mr.
Chaman Lal., 2012 (4) CPR 75 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has
observed thus :
Charanjit Singh Chadha And Ors. vs Sudhir Mehra on 31 August, 2001
This view was again
reiterated in K.A. Mathai @ Babu & Anr. v. Kora Bibbikutty &
Anr., 1996 (7) SCC 212; Jagdish Chandra Nijhawan v. S.K. Saraf,
IX (1998) SLT 477 = IV (1998) CCR 118 (SC) = 1999 (1) SCC 119;
Charanjit Singh Chadha & Ors. v. Sudhir Mehra, VI (2001) SLT
883 = III (2001) CCR 232 (SC) = 2001 (7) SCC 417, following the
earlier judgment of this Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. The State
of Kerala & Anr., AIR 1966 SC 1178; Smt. Lalmuni Devi v. State of
Bihar & Ors., I (2001) SLT 26 = I (2001) CCR 9 (SC) = 2001 (2) SCC
17 and Balwinder Singh v. Asstt. Commissioner, V (2005) SLT 195
= III (2005) CCR 8 (SC) = CCE 2005 (4) SCC 146."
Sundaram Finance Ltd vs State Of Kerala And Another on 30 November, 1965
This view was again
reiterated in K.A. Mathai @ Babu & Anr. v. Kora Bibbikutty &
Anr., 1996 (7) SCC 212; Jagdish Chandra Nijhawan v. S.K. Saraf,
IX (1998) SLT 477 = IV (1998) CCR 118 (SC) = 1999 (1) SCC 119;
Charanjit Singh Chadha & Ors. v. Sudhir Mehra, VI (2001) SLT
883 = III (2001) CCR 232 (SC) = 2001 (7) SCC 417, following the
earlier judgment of this Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. The State
of Kerala & Anr., AIR 1966 SC 1178; Smt. Lalmuni Devi v. State of
Bihar & Ors., I (2001) SLT 26 = I (2001) CCR 9 (SC) = 2001 (2) SCC
17 and Balwinder Singh v. Asstt. Commissioner, V (2005) SLT 195
= III (2005) CCR 8 (SC) = CCE 2005 (4) SCC 146."
M/S. Magma Fincorp Ltd. vs Subhankar Singh on 13 July, 2012
In the case of Magma Fincorp Ltd. v. Sh. Subhankar Singh,
I (2013) CPJ 27 (NC) , Hon'ble National Commission observed that :
The Companies Act, 1956
A. Ganesan vs Sundar, Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd. & ... on 30 October, 2009
5. Shri B. Gopa Kumar, learned counsel for the OPs argued that the
complainant had not deposited the instalments regularly and defaulted
in making instalments, therefore, the OPs repossessed the vehicle in
question. He further argued that the complainant himself surrendered
the vehicle before the OPs and he shown his inability to deposit the
instalments, therefore, the vehicle was repossessed by the OPs. The
complainant failed to deposit the instalments regularly and loan
agreement was executed between the OPs/company and the
complainant. The OPs/company is owner of the vehicle in question and
the complainant is simply a bailee of the vehicle, therefore, the
OPs/company is entitled to repossess the vehicle and OPs did not
//5 //
commit any deficiency in service. The order passed by the District
Forum, is erroneous and is not sustainable in eye of law. He placed
reliance on judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Revision
Petition No.1657 of 2009 - A. Ganesan v. Sundar, Manager, Indusind
Bank Ltd. & another; Ashok Leyland Finance Limited and others v.
Jagnarayana, 2005 L.T. (Consumer) 9, judgement of this Commission in
the case of Surendra Kumar Agrawal v. Telco Finance Ltd. & Anr., IV
(2006) CPJ 68 (NC).
1