i [ ^k IN THE ffiGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON N^.3^'3272005 PETmONER - . .4 f,y? X57 /$''./ S-/y',v RESPQNDENTS Shrachi Securities Umited, A company re^stered and incorporated under Companies Act 1956, having registered office at TODI MANSION, P-15, India Exchange Place Extension, Calcutta, 700 073, having branch office at Raipur, Represented through Sanjay Shrivastav, Authorised Signatory of the company. VBRSUS 1. StateofChhatti^arh, throu^i the Secretary Transport, Mantralay, D.K.S Bhawan Raipur (C.G.). 2. Road Transport Officers, Raipur. 3. Superintendent of Police, Raipur. 4. Station House Ofiicer, Gaaij ^C^PUM ^C-Ci) WMT PBTITION (WDBR ARTICUB 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OP ISDIA FOR ISSVANCE OP WTOT OF MANDAMUS. CERTIOKARY OR ASY OTHBR WRIT OR UKB IIATXmE The Petitioner most humbly begs to submit as under :- '' T^. "~""-c..<<l 'l"^.'y^l^ ^-: •^^ ^ ^^^.. aT.ePt)^ ^-.^ ':rw.':^ "'1'n -'^^—^ s^i^^ ^y &:^c »<_-c ^-•:-';»"..iD ^'U,^ XI-HC-22 ^TI^T^T f^TT^3TT^T ^W^f?cT 3^ ^Nid^, ^Tf1<Hji^ f^rrey 311^1 451<^, ^l^dlsh^J*''"'"""^-^?'"-^ 200&' 9 3n^T)?RTTW:^cT petitiojne: comp^ny .483DLTC48LQIQ779302 pi^rohas 8.8.2005 Shri Kishore, Bhadiiri, | Shri U.N.S. Dco, Govt. Respondent Nos,2 3& 4 Heaid. The case of fhe non-bankiag fixiancial on tihic basis of hirc ptirch^ compaay had finaaced aTat^ BhaUa ofTatibandh, Raipitr & Chassis No^ on aa agreeinent of hire samc was rcgistered unt ^ccordingly, aa endorsemenll (Amiexure P-4). Further case| 2-3 iastallaiente fhe said therefore, fhe petitioner-Co|i borrower for paynient of ba|k and expenses, Despite said the petitioiier Company took| of iion-payiaent of dues, ^ witaess of one Ajit Singh io^ Coiapaiiy has committed da4 petitioner compaay had to t^l therefore, the company has for fiuiishjng the particulars) cM^?<n4)'ri ^i^^T^fWt'^Ri^K ^^rf^Trsn^T counsel for the petifioner. Adv. fortheState. are present in Ctourt, a|ner m that the pcftitioner coxapany is a 4ny, which fmiaaces vehicle®to its cfiexxts i^sc agrcenient aiid in fhat process the Sierra vehicle to one Siikhviader Siagh t)earing Engine No.377008 MQQ 925030 t, The said vehicle was fmanced c^rchase dated 6.2.2001 (Amiexure P-3), ^cr rcgistration No.CG04-2599 and |t was made ia fhe registration certicate I of tlie petitioner is fhat affcer payment of faUed to pay fiirther iast^llmeats, [mpany had issued a notice to said ^ance amount along with other charges ^iotice when no payment was made then |the possessioa ofvehicle on the ground (ktter repossession fhe said borrower in |lged a report sayiag tib.at the petitioner [oily/extortion* On such ixiforiiiation fhe suitable iaiformation from the R.T.O^ jmoved aa appMcation before tlie R.T.O. of vehicle, The R.T.O. on receivmg the bofrower •alaii< tAke XI-HC-22 3TI^T^T f^TT^3TT^T ^IWC^cT \^ h"^ ^^^PTT^PT, ^Tfl^i^Ko^ fa<ni^^< 3TT^?T 60 q5T<^ HI^C-11 Sh^licb^^^^u ^ 200 f^^' 3TT^T ^RTTW ^Tf^cT -2. cbi^I^41Ti ^i^^T^'te^^^K ^3Tf^H3TT^T application iajfcinxied fhe pejtitioner coxnpaay that on 5.6.2003 xaao objection certificate was issujed by fhe company to stnke out odff fhe hypothecation endorsement, RTO showiag that the vehicl^ to 18.8.2004, this crcated d^ ^yhereas, thc certificate provided by the I was contaiaing hypothecatioxi entry up ^ubt m the mind of petitioner company, therefore, fhe petitioner coia^any vide letter Aainexure P-8 iafomied the R,T.0, fhat for transfeit of ownership no objection certificate regardmg strikiag off the phypthecation endoi^emjent has to be provided by the compaay \mdcr fhe signatures of two directors naaiely Mr. Ravi Todi & |M[r. Sasijeev Agarwal aiid except fhe certifk?ate issued under s^gnatures of fhese two directors no certificate will be taken as ^uthorized for issziaace of no objectibn certi&cate, Howcvcr, the poMc|e authoritics ofPolice Statfoa Gunj wcre after the employees of petitioxier compaay and rep^itedly caltuig upon them to appear before Ipie poUce aufhorities because a case was registerd imder Section 392 ^ffhe IPC. On fhe first date of petitloner notices werc issu^d, the R,T.O, Raipur & S.H.O^ PoUce Station Gunj were directedj pursuance ofthat order they The defence of R.T.O, received a letter dated 14.2] heariag after heaxmg couxisel for the to remaio. present m Court mid m are present ia Court today. Raipur is fhat ofBcials of RTO, Raipur 2003 on fhe letter head of petitioner- coiapaay along with aci appl^cation fBled in Fonn-35 under fhe seal and sigaature of the Compax^ to fhe eflfect fhat as the hirer has paid aU tlxe amount due, tiierefore![ no objection certtficate was issued aiKl ^) XI-HC-22 3TI^T^T f^t^CT^fT ^t^^fN' 3^T ^iiqKrt^, ^TTl^l^<$5 f^TRTy 3ll^lM51<sh _.Vf^2,^2..^.<C. Nl^dl ^hW^h -^-----•»—-^ 200 ^^ 3^T?^TrW:^f?cf ->J <=hi^fd41^ ^i^<nT^:tel<ft'<r^<-<-i< ^3Tf^TW^T accordingly^ the h^Tpofheca^ion endorsexaent was deleted j&ojm the registration certificate, Leanied couiiscl for Ijhe petitioner submits that fhe petitioner compaGiy Iiad already gave ^ the RTO stating fhat unless| letter-dated 17.8.2004 (Amiexure P-8) to |any no objectioa certificate or documeiite are signed by Mr, Ravi fodi, Director & Mr. Sanjeev Agarwal, Director, same should not b|e considered to be signed by or on befaalf oftih.e compaay and this lct^er was particularly given in rcspect offhe vehicle iti question, which wfas purchased m ftie name of Suldivmder Siiigh after obtsmiag loan JQx>m fhe petitioner company. But, this no objection certificate and apj R.T.O, much before 17.8.201 to place on record the doc| Now coxaiGLg to fhe <| alication form were submitted beft>re fhe 34. Shri Bhaduri also tried to ax^gue fhat conipaiiy also gave thc lctte^ prior to 17 <8.2004, but he was not able 'ument showmg th.e fact that on earUer occasions also fhe R,T,0, oflBicials were mformed about the said given iiiformation, uestion regardiag harrasmient by poUc^ authorities of PoUce Stal|Lon Gunj, rcspondent No.4-Shri N.P, Upadhayay is present m Cc^urt. He submits that on 11.4.2005 the petitioner gave mformation repossession of vehicle in was lodged at Police Stationj to Nm that they arc goiag to take tlie ;stioa. Thercafter, on 20.4.2005 a F1R Paxidri, Raipiir firoxn where fhe case was transferred to PoUce Statiox3| Titarapara^ Raipur aad ia that casc said SuKhvmder Smgh was arrcsjted. He furtfier submits that no case has been registered imder Sectij^n 392 of the IPC agamst fhe petitioner coinpany. XI-HC-22 ___^_^_ g2 S^T^II^Krl^, ^TTRFT^/ 311^1 M5(< _^..3>z<s^.l<s<. iTmw3Fmw>>\"'t'<><""'<"^ 200 ^f^^ W^T^T f^TT^^TT^T ^RT^^cT ^c^k^_ 3^T^RTTW^ri?cT ^ Leamed Goveramient respoiident No,4 never harras[ed It appears ftiat based petitioner company the R.T.(|) clause from the registration the vehicle ia question was Sethi. Thercforc, ia view of th^ Iiarassing any of the petitfo|aer letter dated 17.8.2004 (Amiefurc saxne Uable to be disjcaissed lAdvocate for the State subxaite fhat ony exaployee of petitioner company. ^n no objection certificate given by fhe ordered for deletion of hypothecation lcertificate and fhereafter, on 8.9,2004 tr^asferred in fhe name ofAmaxjeet Smgli above fact that resppndent No,4 is iiot company's employee and ^lso (he P-8) fhis petition does not survive, it is disxnissed, — adid <=hl^?d41^ WI^Tfffte^^T^K ^^T^R'W^T Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (^^f^)