AU FINANCIERS(INDIA) PVT LTD Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE NO 9, JAIPUR METROPOLITAN, JAIPUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These six writ petitions agitate a common grievance, hence, they are being decided by this common order. Facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 98/2013 are being taken as a lead case for disposal of the writ petitions.

(2.) Case of the petitioner-company is that it is non-banking financial institution, having its registered office at Jaipur. The petitioner-company provides financial services including auto loans. It is submitted that an auto loan was advanced to Respondent No. 2, Bhupinder Raisinghbhai Chauhan(for short 'the respondent-borrower') for purchase of a vehicle bearing Engine No. 4751DT14CXYP20749 and Chassis No. MAT607146CWC21373. It is further submitted that a Hire Purchase Agreement was executed between the petitioner-company and the respondent-borrower, whereunder loan facility of Rs. 4,63,000/- was made available by the petitioner-company, which was to be repaid by the respondent-borrower in 48 monthly installments, each of Rs. 13,121/-. An Agreement For Loan And Guarantee No. AU113424 dated 26.06.2012 was entered into between the petitioner-company and the respondent-borrower. It is further submitted that only upon performance of his entire obligations and repayment of all 48 equated monthly installments of Rs. 13,121/-, the respondent-borrower was to obtain absolute ownership rights of the vehicle. It is submitted that conversely, till the complete repayment of the loan amount, the respondent-borrower was only to have the mere right to use the vehicle and that right, under the Agreement executed between the parties, was to be lost on any default made in the repayment of the loan amount, entitling the petitioner-company to seize the hypothecated vehicle for recovery of the loan advanced. It is further submitted that as per Clause 17.2(ii), it was expressly provided that in case of default committed of the hypothecation loan agreement by the borrower during his repayment schedule, his right to continue with the possession of the vehicle would be forfeited and the petitioner-company would lawfully and contractually be entitled to forthwith expropriate the vehicle.

(3.) Further case of the petitioner is that soon after availing the advance facility, even while the respondent-borrower continued to enjoy the vehicle hypothecated with the petitioner-company and purchased from the loan advanced by the petitioner-company, he started defaulting on the repayment of the monthly installments. Repeated reminders, made to the respondent-borrower to adhere to his contractual obligations and make payment of the overdue amount constituted of default in the monthly installments, were of no avail and the respondent-borrower continued to violate the terms and conditions of the Agreement executed between the parties with impunity and to use the hypothecated vehicle, in respect of which he has no right of possession/use.