Mandatory injunction u/s 39 specific relief (is applicable on moveable property)


Civil court has given a ex partee decree (mandatory injunction u/s 39 for specific relief) against me in 2001, on a/c of repossession of vehicle. Infect vehicle was repossessed by my principal i.e. Tata Motor Finance. To whom I was associated as a Direct Marketing associate. The complainant has only made me a party. I failed to attend the court hearings. Thus I was declared Ex-partee in 2002. Again I appealed the Honourable court u/s 9 rule 13 that was also decided against me in 2006. Kindly advice how I can challenge the court verdict on return of vehicle, damage against un authorised repossession. (Court has given the decision u/s 39 mandatory injunction for specific relief) Does court decision u/s 39 applicable on moveable property (Vehicle)? • That there was a hire purchase agreement between tata motor finance & complaint. • That we were only direct marketing associate of TMF, • That vehicle was repossessed by TMF. • That complainant has give us EMI that too we acknowledged with our provisional receipts and sent to TMF all provisional receipts issued by us are on TMF record.(we had only extended a voluntarily service to complainant. • That TMF officer had given his statement in witness box in the year 2012 that on a/c of default in repayment they have repossessed the vehicle. And all receipts issued by us, are received by them. Regards, Sunil 94180-53959
 
Reply   
 

Originally posted by : Sunil kumar
Civil court has given a ex partee decree (mandatory injunction u/s 39 for specific relief) against me in 2001, on a/c of repossession of vehicle. Infect vehicle was repossessed by my principal i.e. Tata Motor Finance. To whom I was associated as a Direct Marketing associate. The complainant has only made me a party.

I failed to attend the court hearings. Thus I was declared Ex-partee in 2002. Again I appealed the Honourable court u/s 9 rule 13 that was also decided against me in 2006. Kindly advice how I can challenge the court verdict on return of vehicle, damage against un authorised repossession. (Court has given the decision u/s 39 mandatory injunction for specific relief)
Does court decision u/s 39 applicable on moveable property (Vehicle)?

• That there was a hire purchase agreement between tata motor finance & complaint.
• That we were only direct marketing associate of TMF,
• That vehicle was repossessed by TMF.
• That complainant has give us EMI that too we acknowledged with our provisional receipts and sent to TMF all provisional receipts issued by us are on TMF record.(we had only extended a voluntarily service to complainant.
• That TMF officer had given his statement in witness box in the year 2012 that on a/c of default in repayment they have repossessed the vehicle. And all receipts issued by us, are received by them.


Regards,
Sunil
 

 

 
Reply   
 


LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

Search Forum:








×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu