9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her of appellant was the Chairman and also In-charge of the aforesaid Company. He died on 2-2-1992. The appellant became the Director of the aforesaid Company immediately after the demise of his father. An order was placed for purchase of a Mahindra Jeep by making payment of a cheque dated 22-7-1991 for Rs. 2,83,192. The said order was placed with M/s. Tirupati Balaji Motors, New Delhi. As per the original delivery receipt and letter addressed to the appellant, the vehicle was delivered to the appellant on 15-4-1992. In this connection, reference may be made to the letter dated 12-4-1992 (Annexure R-5 in the paper book) which is addressed to the appellant herein. The subject of the said letter was with respect to the delivery of his vehicle. By the said letter M/s. Tirupati Balaji Motors, New Delhi informed the appellant that despite repeated reminders for the last five months regarding delivery of the aforesaid vehicle, the delivery was not taken. As per the order placed, the said jeep was lying ready for the last five months and was duly registered temporarily in the name of the appellant. Copy of the temporary registration and the bill of the receipt were also enclosed with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h is attached under sub-section (3) could be dealt with by the Custodian in such a manner as the Special Court direct in that regard. In order to comply with the statutory provisions, the Custodian (respondent No. 1 herein) issued a public notice dated 10-9-1992 calling upon all the persons who had dealings with M/s. Fair Growth Financial Services Limited to inform him about the same. The appellant, however, after a long period, for the first time, by his letter dated 4-8-1998 informed the Custodian that one Mahindra Jeep belonging to respondent No. 2 was parked at S-25, Panchasheel Park, New Delhi-110001, at the residence of one Mr. Vijay Sachdev. It was also informed by the appellant in that letter that the said vehicle was supposedly under a hire purchase/lease agreement. The appellant also enclosed with the aforesaid letter dated 4-8-1998 five original letters pertaining to the said vehicle which are of the following nature : 1.Letter dated 11-1-1992 from respondent No. 2 to M/s. Tirupati Balaji Motors, New Delhi. 2.Original invoice for Rs. 2,90,200 in the name of the appellant. 3.Original C.M. Form dated 3-3-1992. 4.Original letter dated 12-4-1992 addressed to respondent N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited by the appellant during the course of hearing of the aforesaid application and the amount was directed to adjust from the said deposit. 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Special Court, the present appeal is filed. 8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the documents placed on the records. 9. The father of the appellant, who was the Chairman of the notified party, expired on 2-2-1992. Order for purchase of the aforesaid vehicle was placed on 22-7-1991. Office note of the said debt of M/s. Fair Growth Financial Services Limited is annexed as Annexure R-2 with paper book and relevant portion thereof reads as follows : "1. Chairman has verbally sanctioned H.P. Finance for Mr. Premanand R. Shenoy Ms. Fairgrowth Agencies Ltd. for a Mahindra Jeep. The cost of the said good is Rs. 2,83,192, to be supplied by M/s. Tirupati Balaji Motors. 2. The payment for the vehicle is to be made today (prior to the announcement of the Budget on 24-7-91). hence after taking approval from Mr. Rajagopalan, Vice President, on phone a cheque for the said amount is being rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his name for which consideration was paid by the M/s. Fair Growth Financial Services Limited. The premises S-25, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi-110 001 was previously occupied by the father of the appellant. Having found all those facts against the appellant, it was concluded that the vehicle in question was purchased by the appellant through respondent No. 2 on hire purchase agreement and, therefore, the amount was paid by respondent No. 2. Therefore, the vehicle was registered in the name of the appellant. When the temporary registration of the vehicle was taken on 3-3-1992, the delivery of the vehicle was taken by the notified party. The appellant was the Director of the notified party. Consequent thereto, a categorical finding was recorded that the aforesaid transaction was known and authorised by the appellant who was aware that the vehicle was ordered by his father on his behalf for which consideration was paid by the notified party. In that view of the matter, the direction was issued for payment of the amount in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Act. 13. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, however, submitted that the aforesaid conclusions arrived at by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
