RSS Feed
Twitter
8:54 PM
Blogger
Four years ago, a Delhi district court described it as a “classic” case when Citicorp Finance, a lending and finance company, sent goons and reclaimed a vehicle from a man who allegedly defaulted in paying loan instalments.
Last month, the Delhi High Court held the company guilty of contempt of court and read out a unique punishment — apology to be published in leading national dailies in the country’s four metros. The apology would unequivocally mention the company’s resolve not to ever reclaim a loaned vehicle using force.
Reproaching the company for reportedly reclaiming a vehicle from a man by employing goons despite a district court’s restraint order, Justice Vipin Sanghi said the firm must get exemplary punishment because they overreached a judicial order and “apparently” used extra-judicial methods.
“It is clear that if the petitioner is allowed to go unpunished, it would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the rule of law. It would also lower the dignity and majesty of this court and courts subordinate to it,” the judge said.
Cautioning Citicorp from repeating the act, Justice Sanghi said: “In these circumstances, while once again warning the contemnor against resorting to such tactics in future, I direct the company to publish, in leading national dailies published from metro cities of Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai, public notices stating they shall not resort to taking forcible possession of vehicles or assets, which are taken on hire-purchase by their customer, and that possession shall be taken only in accordance with the due process of law.”
The incident took place in January-February 2008 when Citicorp moved an application before a district court. It said Kailash Prajapat had defaulted in paying instalments for his loan and, hence, the company required to reclaim the vehicle. The court then appointed an official receiver to get the possession of the vehicle, but restrained the company from selling it till the next date. Subsequently, Prajapat appeared in court and contended that despite appointment of a receiver, his car was forcibly taken away by the company’s goons and was later sold. He also claimed he had no outstanding dues.
The court sought an explanation from the company on Prajapat’s statement. As no cogent explanation came by, the district court sent a reference of contempt of court to the High Court, where the company contended they did not forcibly take away the vehicle. It further said there was some confusion over the period up to which the district court order was in force.
Justice Sanghi was unimpressed with the arguments. He said Citicorp, which has all the wherewithal and resources to make it aware of the laws and the consequences of willful disobedience of a court’s order, could not seek excuse claiming it was not certain about a judicial order.
The court then held the company guilty of civil contempt. Citicorp, in its affidavit, put an unconditional apology with a statement that it had never taken possession of a vehicle without following due process of law after this incident. The company claimed to have paid Rs 2 lakh in compensation to Prajapat.
Source: Financial Express
Last month, the Delhi High Court held the company guilty of contempt of court and read out a unique punishment — apology to be published in leading national dailies in the country’s four metros. The apology would unequivocally mention the company’s resolve not to ever reclaim a loaned vehicle using force.
Reproaching the company for reportedly reclaiming a vehicle from a man by employing goons despite a district court’s restraint order, Justice Vipin Sanghi said the firm must get exemplary punishment because they overreached a judicial order and “apparently” used extra-judicial methods.
“It is clear that if the petitioner is allowed to go unpunished, it would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the rule of law. It would also lower the dignity and majesty of this court and courts subordinate to it,” the judge said.
Cautioning Citicorp from repeating the act, Justice Sanghi said: “In these circumstances, while once again warning the contemnor against resorting to such tactics in future, I direct the company to publish, in leading national dailies published from metro cities of Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai, public notices stating they shall not resort to taking forcible possession of vehicles or assets, which are taken on hire-purchase by their customer, and that possession shall be taken only in accordance with the due process of law.”
The incident took place in January-February 2008 when Citicorp moved an application before a district court. It said Kailash Prajapat had defaulted in paying instalments for his loan and, hence, the company required to reclaim the vehicle. The court then appointed an official receiver to get the possession of the vehicle, but restrained the company from selling it till the next date. Subsequently, Prajapat appeared in court and contended that despite appointment of a receiver, his car was forcibly taken away by the company’s goons and was later sold. He also claimed he had no outstanding dues.
The court sought an explanation from the company on Prajapat’s statement. As no cogent explanation came by, the district court sent a reference of contempt of court to the High Court, where the company contended they did not forcibly take away the vehicle. It further said there was some confusion over the period up to which the district court order was in force.
Justice Sanghi was unimpressed with the arguments. He said Citicorp, which has all the wherewithal and resources to make it aware of the laws and the consequences of willful disobedience of a court’s order, could not seek excuse claiming it was not certain about a judicial order.
The court then held the company guilty of civil contempt. Citicorp, in its affidavit, put an unconditional apology with a statement that it had never taken possession of a vehicle without following due process of law after this incident. The company claimed to have paid Rs 2 lakh in compensation to Prajapat.
Source: Financial Express
0 comments:
Post a Comment