SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED Vs. K SIVAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the Order passed by the learned single Judge dated 7.4.2011 setting aside the orders appointing the Commissioner and also seizure of vehicles and directing the Appellant to return the two seized vehicles to the Respondent, the Appellant - Sundaram Finance Limited has preferred these appeals.

(2.) THE Appellant is a non-banking finance Company carrying on business of extending hire purchase/loan facility on automobiles and machinery and leasing of vehicles/ equipment/machinery. On three loan agreements, the Respondent availed financial assistance from the Appellant Company for purchase of heavy commercial vehicles, the details of which are as under: Sl. No. Agreement No. & date Loan amount in Rs. No.of Instls. & amount in Rs. Amount repayable in Rs. Reg.No. 1. BD7531 05.03.2007 12,00,000/- 55x29,160 16,03,800/- TN-30T 9590 2. DJ6509 05.04.2008 12,50,000/- 1x30,540 53x30,320 30,540/- 16,06,960/- TN-54Z 3083 3. DJ6848 13.02.2009 7,00,000 35x25,700 8,99,500/- TN-30T 0152 Total 41,40,800/- THE first two loan agreements viz., BD7531 dated 5.3.2007 and DJ6509 dated 5.4.2008 are the subject matter of the applications. Appellant averred that apart from the above three loan agreements, the Respondent had also entered into other loan agreements as guarantor.

(3.) THE Respondent filed two applications A.Nos.1131 and 1132 of 2011 to set aside the order dated 2.2.2011 for seizure of the two vehicles. THE Respondent averred that he has availed financial assistance from the Appellant only for three heavy commercial vehicles and that he had been making payments through cheques to the Appellant company and he made payment of Rs.63,72,246/- (including Rs.7,62,432/- paid for foreclosure of four loan accounts and that there was an excess payment of Rs.14,69,014/-. Stating that he has made excess payment and that the officials of the Appellant were misusing the cheques entrusted to them for payment of instalments, and alleging that the amounts paid by him were not given to proper credit, the Respondent prayed for setting aside the order dated 2.2.2011 and for return of seized vehicles.