SATYA PRAKASH BAGLA Vs. SPRINT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Satya Prakash Bagia (for short the plaintiff.) has filed the present suit for declaration that the charge of the plaintiff on the vehicles ranks higher than the claim, if any, of defendants 2 and 3 and that the action of defendants 2 and 3 in seizure/detaining the vehicles on 26/06/2001 is illegal. He seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff, his representatives with respect to the vehicles mentioned in the plaint and lastly a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to redeem the pledge of the cars by paying the amount.

(2.) The facts pleaded by the plaintiff are that the plaintiff was approached by defendant no.1 (M/s Sprint Services Pvt. Ltd.) for a temporary loan in the month of March 2001. It was represented that the money was needed to import new cars in connection with its business for providing car rental services in India. It was further told to the plaintiff that the cars had been duly cleared from the custom authorities under EPGC scheme and the customs duty foregone by the authorities on the said vehicles was fully secured with a bank guarantee issued by western Corporation Bank Ltd. Mumbai. Acting on the representation aforesaid the plaintiff agreed to grant the advance ad as security for the amount advanced defendant no.1 agreed to pledge the new imported cars. The plaintiff in this regard advanced certain amounts details of which have been given: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_250_ILRDLH8_2002Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) The defendant no.1 had agreed to repay the amount together with interest at 24% within three months. But it is asserted that plaintiff was shocked to learn from the officers of defendant no.3 (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) who visited the premises of the plaintiff on 29/06/2001 without serving any notice that the cars which were subject matter of pledge were required by them in connection with some custom duty evasion by defendant no.1. The officers represented that vehicles were required to be seized under the provisions of Customs act, 1962 and the vehicles were found parked in the premises of the plaintiff. The grievance of the plaintiff is that his charge is prior in point of time when no dispute whatsoever regarding any evasion of custom duty had every been raised. Now the plaintiff has come to know that there is some litigation pending between defendants. It is alleged that there is no violation of any condition of import asserting that defendants 2 and 3 cannot remove cars from the custody of the plaintiff. The present suit as such with the aforesaid reliefs referred to above has been filed.