AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satya Poot Mehrotra and Rajesh Chandra, JJ.—The petitioner took loan from respondent No. 2 for purchasing a truck. The petitioner committed default in payment of loan. Subsequently, the truck was repossessed by the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 is now proceeding to make sale/auction of the truck in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2.
The petitioner has filed present writ petition inter alia praying for directing respondent No. 2 to release truck in favour of the petitioner after taking entire instalments due.
We have heard Sri P. K. Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner.
From perusal of averments made in the writ petition, it is evident that respondent No. 2 is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Respondent No. 2 is not Government Company nor respondent No. 2 come within the definition of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. No violation of statutory duty on the part of respondent No. 2 has been shown. Transaction between petitioner and respondent No. 2 is purely commercial. In such circumstances, writ petition filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 2 is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.
However, this order will not come in the way of the petitioner in seeking appropriate relief by pursuing remedy before appropriate forum.