9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (9) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt, dated January 7, 1971, and the present petition has been filed on its behalf by the official liquidator. Mohan Lal, respondent No. 1, took a loan of Rs. 2,500 from the petitioner on September 11, 1965, and executed a promote as well as an agreement of pledge whereby the motor vehicle (tempo) No. PNH 2239 was pledged with the petitioner on September 11, 1965, for Rs. 2,79750 comprising of principal, interest and finance commission. The said amount was payable by respondent No. 1 in six instalments. The first installment of Rs. 466 was payable on March 20, 1965, and the subsequent instalments were to be paid monthly on the 20th of each month commencing from November 20, 1965. The last and the sixth installment comprising of Rs. 467.50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r alleged that the claim petition was barred by limitation. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed: 1.Whether the claim petition is within time? 2.Whether the agreement of pledge of motor vehicles was not executed by the respondents? (Burden of proof of this issue has been put on Mohan Lal, respondent, as he has signed the written statement in Hindi, whereas the document in question is typed in English and it is not the case of this respondent that he does not know English. Counsel for this respondent admits that his client knows English and can sign in English). 3.Whether Tempo No. PNH 2239, Engine No. 117472, and Chassis No. 461203 was taken into possession by the company about one month after the payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irector of the petitioner, also corroborated this statement as P.W. 1. He further stated that he had not signed this agreement himself. In his statement Mohan Lal, respondent No. 1, did not deny the execution of the agreement exhibit P-1. He admitted that he had not paid any installment. Thus issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the petitioner and it is held that the agreement of pledge, exhibit P-1, was executed by respondent No. 1 as hirer and by respondent No. 2 as guarantor. Issues Nos. 3 4 These relate to the same matter and are dealt with together. Mohan Lal, respondent No. 1, stated as R.W. 1 that a month and a half after the taking of the loan from the petitioner, the tempo in question, pledged with the petitioner, had been t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lment of loan was payable on October 20, 1965. Thereafter, each installment was to be paid on the 20th of each month and the last installment was payable on March 20, 1966. According to clause ( b ) of this agreement, respondent No. 1, who was described as borrower, was entitled to retain the motor vehicle as a bailee on behalf of the company. According to clause ( i ), in case of failure or default on the part of the borrower in the payment of any of the instalments, the petitioner was entitled to take possession of the motor vehicle as its pawner and could realise the amount by selling or auctioning the motor vehicle after giving one week notice to the borrower, respondent No. 1. It was also stipulated that the petitioner was entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod of limitation Time from which period begins to run 70. To recover movable prop-erty deposited or pawned from a depository or paw-nee. Three years. The date of refusal after demand. Perusal of the above article shows that this provision is applicable only if the suit or the petition is for recovery of movable property or articles deposited or pawned. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to the agreement, exhibit P-1, though the motor vehicle pledged belonged to respondent No. 1, yet the same was transferred to the latter as a bailee or pawnee and the position of the petitioner was of bailor, pawner or depositor. Though the cumulative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is case because the question of trustee would arise only if the petition had been for return of the motor vehicle, of which possession was given to respondent No. 1 as a bailee or a trustee. Now the question for consideration is as to which article of the Limitation Act is applicable in the circumstances of the present case. Undoubtedly, the claim petition is for the recovery of the loan against the motor vehicle in question which had been pledged as a security, and the loan could also be recovered by seizure and sale of the said vehicle. If the claim petition is to be treated as one for the recovery of the loan simpliciter advanced by the petitioner to respondent No. 1, then article 19 of the Limitation Act will be applicable under which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
