MEENA AGRAWAL Vs. WORLDLINK FINANCE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this suit for permanent injunction and recovery of damages, restraining the defendant from interfering with her possession of five Ambassador cars; for transferring of the said cars in the name of the plaintiff in the records of the State Transport Authority, the return of one of the vehicles, seized by the defendant to the plaintiff, and for a decree for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,05,000.00 , the plaintiff has filed an application (IA No. 3373/94) for grant of an ad interim injunction. On the said application, notice with an ex parte ad interim injunction order was issued on 11th April, 1994, restraining the defendant from taking possession of four Ambassador cars and from disposing of, alienating or parting with possession of the seized Ambassador car. On being served with summons /notice ,the defendant has moved an application (IA No. 1052/94) for vacation of the said ex parte order.

(2.) This order will dispose of both the applications.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, in October, 1990 she applied to the defendantfinance company for a term loan of Rs. 6,74,000.00 repayable in 36 monthly instalments forfinancing five Ambassador cars; on 20th October, 1990 the defendant insisted the cars being registered in its name, sanctioned and disbursed the said amount only then; that till 21st August, 1993 it had paid 34 instalments i.e. Rs. 9,23,032.00 towards the initial loaned amount and interest; although she has made a payment in excess of the entire principal amount with interest calculated at 15% per annum but according to the defendant two instalments of September and October, 1993, totalling Rs. 54,296.00 were still due. Plaintiff's case further is that at the time of disbursement of the said loan, the defendant had taken forty blank cheques and a bunch of blank proformas signed by her; the defendant Company itself later filled up and presented the said cheques for payment before arrangement for their encashment could be made and when the cheques were thus dishonoured due to insufficient funds, the defendant threatened to institute proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; she requested the defendant to supply a copy of her account and also a no dues certificate on the payment of the said balance amount of Rs. 54,296.00 before she had made final payment but the defendant refused to do so; the transaction in fact was merely a term loan and the plaintiff has been ready and willing to abide by it; the defendant intercepted one of the cars and forcibly took it in its possession on 18th March, 1994, and despite her report to the police no action was taken in the matter. It is alleged that the defendant has no right to take over the vehicles as the plaintiff has returned more than what was disbursed to her and only two instalments remain to be paid; the defendant is threatening to take over the other four vehicles and unless they are restrained from doing so, she is likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury.