2003 (11) TMI 346 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Corporation, which provided finance for the purchase of a vehicle, is entitled to the release of the confiscated vehicle.
2. Interpretation of the term "owner" in the context of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, and its relation to the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951.
3. The effect of vehicle confiscation under the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, when the financed vehicle is involved in a forest offence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Release of the Confiscated Vehicle:
The petitioner, A.P. State Financial Corporation, financed the purchase of a vehicle by respondent No. 4, who defaulted on loan repayments. Consequently, the vehicle was seized under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. The vehicle was later involved in a forest offence and confiscated by respondent No. 2, the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer. The Corporation sought the vehicle's release, arguing that they should be treated as the owner under section 44(2C) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, due to their financial interest and hypothecation agreement.

2. Interpretation of "Owner" in the A.P. Forest Act, 1967:
The term "owner" is not defined in the A.P. Forest Act, 1967. However, section 44(2C) refers to the owner of the vehicle. The court referred to the definition in section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which considers the registered person or the person in possession under a hire-purchase or hypothecation agreement as the owner. The court concluded that the financier (the petitioner) could not be considered the owner for the purposes of section 44(2C) of the Forest Act. The person in possession of the vehicle, in this case, respondent No. 4, was deemed the owner.

3. Effect of Vehicle Confiscation:
The court emphasized that the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, do not override laws providing for the confiscation of vehicles involved in forest offences. The vehicle was confiscated by respondent No. 2 due to its involvement in a forest offence. The court cited previous judgments, including Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. v. Government of A.P. and Mirza Ramza Ali v. Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, supporting the view that the financier cannot claim ownership or seek the vehicle's release solely based on the hypothecation agreement. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan, emphasizing strict compliance with the Act's provisions and discouraging the release of confiscated vehicles to prevent the perpetuation of forest offences.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner, A.P. State Financial Corporation, could not be treated as the owner of the vehicle for the purpose of releasing the confiscated vehicle. The vehicle remained confiscated due to its involvement in a forest offence, and the petitioner's claim was not upheld.