COMMON WEALTH HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVE Vs. KAILASH PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit for mandatory injunction restraining the defendants to forthwith hand over the possession of the Maruti Car bearing registration No. DL2CE-9077 to the plaintiff and for a decree for Rs. 3 lacs by way of damages and Rs. 38,500.00 for being damages for the wrongful withholding of the aforesaid car by the defendant calculated at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per day with effect from 15th January, 1994 till the actual return of the car and for mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to handover the records, papers, documents, files etc. belonging to and pertaining to the plaintiff society with interest @ 24% per annum both future and pendente lite on the decretal amounts and the costs of the suit, the plaintiff by this application prays for the appointment of the receiver to take charge of the Maruti Car bearing registration No. DL2CE-9077 which is presently in possession of Shri Kishhni Vasandani, Brij Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi.

(2.) The case set out in the plaint shortly stated is that the plaintiff is a society duly registered with the Registrar of Societies under the Societies Registration Act (XXII of 1860) bearing Registration No. S-24565 formed with the purpose inter alia to promote awareness of and adherence to Universal Declaration of Human Rights International Covenants Human Rights the declartion of Commonwealth Principles and other declaration relating to Human Rights made by Commonwealth Heads of Government and domestic instruments on Human Rights in member States of the Commonwealth. That the object was to gather, evaluate and disseminate information and in the process to draw attention to progress and set back in various fields of human rights; that the plaintiff appointed defendant No. 1 vide its letter dated 11.3.1993 as a Director with effect from June, 1993. That defendant No. I by his letter dated 20.12.1993 expressed his inability to continue as a Director on account of his difficulties and problems. That the plaintiff society accepted the resignation of defendant No. 1 with effect from 15.1.1994. That defendant No. 1 raised various false and baseless claims by his letter dated 12.1.1994. That during the service tenure defendant No. 1 was also provided by the plaintiff society with a Maruti Car bearing registration No. DL2CE-9077 and the said car has been in the use of defendant No. 1 since September, 1993 in his capacity of Director of the plaintiff. That the said car belongs to the plain tiff society and is owned by it. The said car was purchased under a Special Manufacturers Quota from M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., for the purposes of the plaintiff society only; that defendant No. 1 has admitted that the car in question is the property of the plaintiff society; that after the resignation defendant No. 1 has no right to deal with the car in question or to use the same for his peronsal use and after the acceptance of resignation defendant No. I was liable to forthwith restore the possession of the car to the plaintiff society. That the acceptance of defendant No. 1 resignation and inspite of various requests of the plaintiff society for the return of the said car defendant No. 1 failed to deliver the possession of the said car to the plaintiff society. That the plaintiff by letter dated 4.4.1994 called upon defendant No. 1 to return the car forthwith. That sometime in September, 1994 during the meeting with the Treaurer of the plaintiff society Mr. George Verghese, defendant No. 1 for the first time mentioned that he had transferred the car and was not in possession of the same. That defendant No. 1 had all along given the impression that the car was in his possession and the same would be returned to the plaintiff. That after protracted inquiries made by the plaintiff that it has now emerged that the car is in possession of Shri Kishni Vasandani, A/23, Brij Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi (defendant No. 2); that defendant No. 2 has no right or authority to remain in possession of or use the said car which belongs to the plaintiff. This act on the part of the defendant is thoroughly dishonest, malafide, illegal and constitutes clear breach of trust.

(3.) One Shri Mohan Lal P. Vasandani son of Shri Pritam Das Vasandani has filed affidavit on behalf of defendant No. 2 stating that the husband of defendant No. 2 Shri Ashok M. Vasandani is paternal cousin of the deponent and is at present out of India. That before leaving India 'Shri Ashok Vasandani on benalf of his wife, defendant No. 2, who is the owner of the car requested to him to allow him to park her car inside the garage of the deponent till they returned from abroad; that according to the best of information and knowledge that the car is belonged to defendant No. 2 who purchased the same from defendant No. 1 on or about 22.4.1994 for a sale consideration of Rs. l,85,000.00 . That defendant No. 2 is the bonafide purchaser of the car for the valuable consideration; that after purchasing the car defendant No. 2 got the said vehicle duly transferred and registered in her name; that the copy of the Registration Certificate bearing No. 058460 is issued by the Registering Authority; that defendant No. 1 also issued transfer letter on forms 29 and 30 under Rules 55 and 51(2); that the vehicle weas only registered in the name of defendant No. 1 Dr. Kailash Parkash; that after the vehicle was so transferred in the name of defendant No. 2, she got transferred the insurance cover of the car in her name and the certificate of transfer of insurance in her name is also issued and the same had been got insured by defendant No. 2 vide Insurance Policy No. 3131070064304. That on receipt of the notice of I.A. No. 7680/95 on 5.8.1995 the deponent contacted defendant No. 2 and her husband Mr. Ashok Vasandani.