Citi corp. Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijayalaxmi (Supreme Court)- Even in case of mortgaged goods subject to Hire-Purchase Agreements, the recovery process has to be in accordance with law and the recovery process referred to in the Agreements also contemplates such recovery to be effected in due process of law and not by use of force. Till such time as the ownership is not transferred to the purchaser, the hirer normally continues to be the owner of the goods, but that does not entitle him on the strength of the agreement to take back possession of the vehicle by use of force. The guidelines which had been laid down by the Reserve Bank of India as well as the Appellant Bank itself, in fact, support and make a virtue of such conduct. If any action is taken for recovery in violation of such guidelines or the principles as laid down by this Court, such an action cannot but be struck down.
In the instant case, the situation is a little different, since after the vehicle had been seized, the same was also sold and third party rights have accrued over the vehicle. It is possibly on such account that the Appellant Bank chose to comply with the directions of the District Forum notwithstanding the pendency of this case. Since the Appellant Bank has already accepted the decision of the District Forum and has paid the amounts as directed, no relief can be granted to the Appellant and the Appeals are disposed of in the light of the observations made herein above.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9711 OF 2011
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 19314 of 2007) CITICORP. MARUTI FINANCE LTD. … Appellant Vs.
S. VIJAYALAXMI … Respondent WITH
C.A. NO. 9712/2011 @ SLP(C)NO.3119/2008,
C.A. NO. 9713/2011 @ SLP(C)NO.9550/2009,
C.A. NO. 9714/2011 @ SLP(C)NO.10544/2009,
C.A. NO. 9715/2011 @ SLP (C) NO. 11696/2009 & C.A.NO.9716/2011 @ SLP(C)NO.10547/2009.
J U D G M E N T
