Mohanan P.P. Vs. themanager, Sriram Transport Finance, and ors.

Mohanan P.P. vs themanager, Sriram Transport Finance, and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Dec 06, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/913059

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/913059
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: K.M.Joseph; M.C.Hari Rani, Jj.
Decided On: Dec 06, 2010
Case Number: WP(C).No. 35573 of 2010(V)
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[MR.J.S.KHEHAR, CHIEF .JUSTICE ; MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA, J.J.] This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the impugned order dated 2.3.2011 in IA No. 1479/2010 in AIR (SA) 882/2010 vide Annexure-U and allow the same in accordance with the law and direct t...

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohanan P.P.

Advocate SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ, Adv.

Respondent

themanager, Sriram Transport Finance, and ors.

Advocate SRI.E.M.MURUGAN, Adv.

Excerpt

[mr.j.s.khehar, chief .justice ; mr.justice a.s.bopanna, j.j.] this writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying to set aside the impugned order dated 2.3.2011 in ia no. 1479/2010 in air (sa) 882/2010 vide annexure-u and allow the same in accordance with the law and direct the drat, chennai to adjudicate the appeal in air (sa) 882/2010 on its merits., and etc......the threat of the first respondent and their hired goondas, agents and servants from re-possessing the vehicle of the petitioner by using illegal methods and by using force. b. direct the second respondent to take proper and adequate preventive action against first respondent and their agents, servants, and hired goondas from causing any untoward incident against the petitioner, his family and his vehicle. 2. also there is a direction sought to dispose of ext.p2 representation after giving an opportunity to the petitioner for personal hearing. 3. briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: 4. the petitioner availed a loan of rs.4,00,000/- from the 1st respondent for purchasing a vehicle. according to the petitioner, the amounts were cleared off. however, it is the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent, his agents and hired goondas are trying to repossess the vehicle of the petitioner by using force and illegal methods. there is threat to the life of the petitioner and to the lives of the members of his family unless he surrenders the vehicle. 5. we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned government pleader. 6. the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that amounts are due even after the petitioner was given the benefit of rescheduling in the year 2009. however, he submits that the 1st respondent will not resort to any illegal or forcible method to repossess the vehicle. the 1st respondent will proceed only in accordance with law. 7. we record the submission and dispose of the writ petition directing that if contrary to the submission of the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent attempts to illegally repossess the vehicle and a complaint is lodged by the petitioner to the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent will look into it and if the threat is found to be genuine, he shall afford protection against such repossession. this judgment will not stand in the way of the.....

Full Judgment

1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

A. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents 2 to 4 to afford proper and adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner from the threat of the first respondent and their hired Goondas, agents and servants from re-possessing the vehicle of the petitioner by using illegal methods and by using force.

B. Direct the second respondent to take proper and adequate preventive action against first respondent and their agents, servants, and hired Goondas from causing any untoward incident against the petitioner, his family and his vehicle.

2. Also there is a direction sought to dispose of Ext.P2 representation after giving an opportunity to the petitioner for personal hearing.

3. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

4. The petitioner availed a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the 1st respondent for purchasing a vehicle. According to the petitioner, the amounts were cleared off. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent, his agents and hired goondas are trying to repossess the vehicle of the petitioner by using force and illegal methods. There is threat to the life of the petitioner and to the lives of the members of his family unless he surrenders the vehicle.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader.

6. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that amounts are due even after the petitioner was given the benefit of rescheduling in the year 2009. However, he submits that the 1st respondent will not resort to any illegal or forcible method to repossess the vehicle. The 1st respondent will proceed only in accordance with law.

7. We record the submission and dispose of the writ petition directing that if contrary to the submission of the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent attempts to illegally repossess the vehicle and a complaint is lodged by the petitioner to the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent will look into it and if the threat is found to be genuine, he shall afford protection against such repossession. This judgment will not stand in the way of the 1st respondent approaching before the competent forum and securing appropriate orders.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2010 Same Parties Mohanan P.P. vs themanager, Sriram Transport Finance, and ors. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge K.M.Joseph; M.C.Hari Rani, Jj.

Service Tax