M J KURIAN Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to afford protection to the petitioner against attempts by respondents 2 and 3 to repossess Skoda Laura car bearing Reg.No.KL-39-A-66.

(2.) IT is not disputed that the third respondent is the registered owner of the vehicle. The third respondent had availed financial assistance from one M/s Barclays Finance (not arrayed as a party) for purchase of the car. The second respondent is the service provider for the Barclays Finance. IT is also not further disputed that under the agreement between the financier and the third respondent, the third respondent has a right of seizure if there be defaults in payment of instalments. Thus, the third respondent was in possession of the vehicle purchased by him with the financial assistance from Barclays Finance under an agreement of hypothecation.

(3.) THE third respondent has a tale of woes to narrate to this Court. According to the third respondent, the petitioner has committed flagrant violation of the agreement between the third respondent and the petitioner under which possession of the vehicle has been handed over to the petitioner. THE petitioner is not making payments due to the third respondent. THE third respondent wants to receive the payment of the amount admittedly due from the petitioner and finish off the transaction with the financier. THE petitioner has no bonafides and has come to this Court with this petition in an attempt to cling on to the possession of the vehicle which according to the third respondent is getting deteriorated day by day.