{"id":156129,"date":"2008-02-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008"},"modified":"2016-08-21T05:01:44","modified_gmt":"2016-08-20T23:31:44","slug":"tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Tata Finance Ltd. vs Francis Soeiro on 22 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
National Consumer Disputes Redressal<\/div>\n
Tata Finance Ltd. vs Francis Soeiro on 22 February, 2008<\/div>\n
  \n \n \n \n \n \n NCDRC\n  \n \n \n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\nNational Consumer\nDisputes Redressal Commission \n\n \n\n  New Delhi \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nCircuit Bench at Pune,  Maharashtra \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nFIRST APPEAL NO. 720 of 2003 \n\n \n\n(From the order dated 28.8.2003 passed in Complaint\nNo. 40 of 2002 by the State Commission,  Goa) \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nTata Finance Ltd., \n\n \n\n82,   Mahakali Caves\n  Road, \n\n \n\nAhdheri (East) Mumbai 400093. \n\n \n\nAnd Branch Office at \n\n \n\n18th June Road, \n\n \n\nPanajim, \n\n \n\n Goa.  . Appellant \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n Versus \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nFrancis Soeiro, \n\n \n\nSon of lat Shri Anthony Cosmos\nSoeiro, \n\n \n\nHouse No.925, Naik Waddo, \n\n \n\nAldona, Bardez, \n\n \n\n Goa. . Respondent \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nBEFORE: \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.B.SHAH,  \n\n \n\nPRESIDENT. \n\n \n\n HONBLE\nMR. S.K.NAIK, MEMBER. \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nFor the Appellant : Mr.P.M.Sharma,  \n\n \n\nAdvocate. \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nFor the Respondent : In Person \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\nDated the 22nd Feburary , 2008 \n\n \n\n \u00a0\n\n \n\n O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 M.B.SHAH, J. PRESIDENT <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 This
\ncases illustrates how a financial
\ncompany can ruin a person who takes loan
\nfrom it for earning his
\nlivelihood.\n<\/p>\n
  Admittedly, in this case, the
\nComplainant used the new vehicle, after
\nhaving its body-building, for 2 to 3
\nmonths, and the same was seized from the
\nComplainant on the ground that he failed to pay instalments. Thereafter, it was
\nauctioned and sold at unjustifiably low price. By such an act, the Complainant,
\na poor person, who has taken loan for purchase of the chasis and thereafter
\nspent huge amounts for its body-building, seats, accessories, etc., again
\nby taking loan from the relatives, has
\nlost his life saving and is made a debtor. His entire dream of having a vehicle
\nfor self-earning\/employment is frustrated for years together.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 The State
\nCommission accepted the say of the Complainant that the Appellant
\nunjustifiably, arbitrarily and mala fidely took away the vehicle, Tata LP
\n407, for the purpose of which the
\nComplainant has taken a loan of Rs.3 lakhs from the Appellant for purchase of chasis
\nand sold it thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Against
\nthe order dated 28.8.2003 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
\nCommission, Panaji, Goa, in Complaint No. 40 of 2002, Appellant, Tata Finance
\nLtd., has preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  It
\nis the say of the Complainant that loan was taken for the purchase of chassis
\nof Tata LP 407. At the time of taking the loan, he was required to pay
\nRs.31,839\/- which included service charges of Rs.1,500\/-. And, thereafter, he
\nwas required to pay monthly instalment of Rs.10,700\/- p.m. for a period of
\n35 months. It is further contended
\nthat:\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
.(a) the signature of the
\nComplainant was taken on the agreement dated 1.2.1999 but the same was not
\ngiven to him till a police complaint was lodged on the ground of forceful
\npossession of the vehicle by the Opposite Party  Financier.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
.(b).  after purchase of the
\nvehicle, the vehicle was required to be kept in the garage for body building
\nand it took unduly long time and hence he could ply the vehicle only in
\nSeptember, 1999.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
.(c). he was required to spend
\nRs.2,23,550\/- for its body building, seats, accessories, etc., so as to bring
\nthe vehicle road-worthy, and, for this purpose, he was required to sell
\njewellery and also obtained loan from other persons.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Thereafter,
\nwithin four months, the Opposite Party forcefully took away the possession of
\nthe said vehicle on the ground that
\nthere was failure to pay instalments. It is contended by him that by
\nletter dated 03.01.2001 the Appellant demanded some excess amount. At that
\ntime, he drew the attention of the representative of the Appellants at Goa that
\nhe had made the payments regularly.\n<\/p>\n
Despite this, they forcibly took possession of the vehicle on 27th
\nJanuary, 2001. For this purpose, a
\ncomplaint was lodged at Police Station. He further contended that despite
\nrepeated visits to the Appellants office at Bombay and Goa the vehicle was
\nsold to a third party and the Appellant refunded only amount of Rs.26,190\/- to
\nthe Complainant.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Before the State
\nCommission, as none appeared for the Opposite Party despite service of summons
\nby the Commission as well as notice by post, the State Commission decided the
\nmatter on the basis of evidence brought on record by the Complainant. The State
\nCommission accepted the say of the Complainant that he paid, in all,
\nRs.3,55,500\/- towards instalments for the loan of Rs.3,00,000\/- which he had
\ntaken, and, that the Appellant negligently did not include certain payments
\nmade by the Complainant and proceeded under the false belief that the
\nComplainant had defaulted in paying some instalments. The State Commission also
\nheld that as per Clauses 18 and 20 of the hire purchase agreement entered into
\nbetween the parties Appellant was required to issue notice prior to
\nconfiscation\/repossession of the vehicle and there was nothing to show that
\nsuch notice was given before repossessing the vehicle. Thereafter, the State
\nCommission observed that the draconian
\naction of confiscation of the vehicle amounted to grave deficiency in service
\non the part of the Appellants. The State Commission accepted the version of the
\nComplainant that for making the luxury passenger bus the Complainant was
\nrequired to spend Rs.7,55,854\/-. Therefore, it directed the Appellant to pay
\nthe said amount with interest at the rate of 15% p.a., and also to pay
\nexemplary costs quantified at Rs.50,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  At
\nthe time of hearing of this appeal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
\nthe Appellant firstly contended that the ex-parte impugned order passed by the
\nState Commission requires to be set aside and an opportunity should be given to
\nthe Appellant to defend its case.\n<\/p>\n
 It is difficult
\nto accept the aforesaid contention because after service of summons and the
\nnotice by post, for which acknowledgement is received by the State Commission, if officers of the
\nAppellant were negligent in not appearing before the State Commission, there
\nwas no alternative for the State Commission but to proceed ex-parte. Hence, on
\nthis ground the order passed by the State Commission cannot be said to be in
\nany way erroneous.\n<\/p>\n
 Further, if we
\nremit the matter to the State Commission for retrial after a lapse of six
\nyears, the whole purpose of speedy trial would be frustrated, and the poor
\nconsumer who has taken loan from all the sources would be at a great loss.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 On merits, the
\nlearned counsel for the Appellant, however, relied upon the notice dated
\n3.1.2001 given by the Appellant to the Complainant wherein it has been stated
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  As
\nyour are aware, we had entered into the above Hire Purchase Agreement with you
\nMr.Francis Soeiro as hirer and pursuant thereto entrusted to you the hirer the
\ncaptioned vehicle on hire purchase basis.\n<\/p>\n
 As
\nper the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement and more
\nparticularly the Second Schedule thereof, you hirer are required to pay the
\nmonthly hires on the stipulated dates as incorporated therein.\n<\/p>\n
 You
\nthe hirer have failed to pay the monthly hires as indicated below.
\nConsequently, on account of the said delay\/arrears, you are also liable to pay
\nus compensation for the said due dates in the line with the agreement together
\nwith further compensation till the date of payment.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Arrears
\nof monthly hires are as under:\n<\/p>\n
Sl. No. <\/p>\n
Due Date <\/p>\n
Hire
\n  Amount <\/p>\n
1. <\/p>\n
15.7.2000 <\/p>\n
5,000.00 <\/p>\n
2. <\/p>\n
15.8.2000 <\/p>\n
11,350.00 <\/p>\n
3. <\/p>\n
15.9.2000 <\/p>\n
11,350.00 <\/p>\n
4. <\/p>\n
15.10.2000 <\/p>\n
11,350.00 <\/p>\n
5. <\/p>\n
15.11.2000 <\/p>\n
11,350.00 <\/p>\n
6. <\/p>\n
15.12.2000 <\/p>\n
11,350.00 <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
   Total Amount <\/p>\n
61,750.00 <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  We, therefore, hereby call upon you to
\npay the full overdue amount and the compensation thereof within 14 days from
\nthe date thereof, failing which we shall take further action as we are
\nentitled to under the Hire Purchase Agreement to recover our dues.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  As
\nagainst this, the Complainant immediately pointed out that there were no
\ndefaults in payment of the instalments as stated in the said notice. He further
\npointed out that the demand of instalment at the rate of Rs.11,350\/- is also
\nunjustified. Because, as per the original agreement, the Complainant was
\nrequired to pay a sum of Rs.10,700\/- as instalment. In support of his
\ncontention and from the chart which is produced on record by the Appellant, it is apparent that  <\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
on 26.6.2000 the Appellant has
\nreceived cash amount of Rs.11,350;\n<\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
instalment cheque dated 15.2.2000
\nfor a sum of Rs.11,350\/- was cleared;\n<\/p>\n
–\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
instalment cheque dated 15.4.2000
\nfor a sum of Rs.11,350\/- was cleared;\n<\/p>\n
Similarly, Cheques dated 15.5.2000; 15.6.2000; 15.7.2000; 15.8.2000;
\n15.9.2000, all for the sum of Rs.11,350\/- each were cleared.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 It is true that
\ncheques dated 15.10.2000, dated 15.11.2000, and dated 15.12.2000 were not
\ncleared. But, as per the notice, the demand was for six instalments. Therefore,
\nthe aforesaid notice stating that there was failure on the part of the
\nComplainant to pay the instalments on 15.7.2001, 15.8.2000, and 15.9.2000, is
\ntotally unjustified.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  For
\nthis purpose, Respondent who is appearing in person vehemently pointed out that
\nhe repeatedly requested the officers of the Appellant at Goa and Bombay that he
\nhas paid the instalments for the month of July, August, and September, and,
\ntherefore, notice demanding the said amount be cancelled and possession of the
\nvehicle be not taken.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 However, the
\nlearned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant vehemently contended that
\nthere were default\/defaults prior to 15th June, 2000. He, therefore,
\ncontended that the Appellant was justified in seizing the vehicle and selling
\nthe same. He further submitted that before sale also notice was given to the
\nComplainant.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 In our view,
\nwhen the notice demanding exaggerated amount is issued and the person who has
\ntaken the loan from various sources including the loan for purchasing the
\nchassis from the Appellant would not be in a position to pay the said
\nunjustified amount. Because of the alluring advertisement Complainant took an
\nadventure of purchasing chassis and of building a luxury passenger vehicle and
\nhas suffered immensely by forcefully taking away the possession of the vehicle
\nby the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Further, it is to be reiterated that to
\ntake possession of the vehicle by use of force cannot be justified.  It is to be stated that the Complainant
\nhad not used the vehicle. He had used the vehicle only for 2 to 3 months and
\nthe vehicle was seized from the Complainant. Thereafter, it was auctioned and
\nsold unjustifiably at a low price. By
\nsuch an act of the appellant, a poor man who has taken loan for purchase of the
\nchasis and for building body has lost his life saving and is made a debtor. His
\nentire dream of having a vehicle for self-earning\/employment is frustrated for
\nyears together.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  Hence,
\nin such circumstances it cannot be said that the order passed by the State
\nCommission directing the Appellant to refund the loss suffered by the Appellant
\ncan be said to be in any way erroneous or illegal.\n<\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
  In
\nthe result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
 Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
J.\n<\/p>\n
( M.B.\n<\/p>\n
SHAH ) <\/p>\n
PRESIDENT <\/p>\n
 \u00a0<\/p>\n
 Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
( S.K.\n<\/p>\n
NAIK ) <\/p>\n
MEMBER <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Tata Finance Ltd. vs Francis Soeiro on 22 February, 2008 NCDRC National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi \u00a0 Circuit Bench at Pune, Maharashtra \u00a0 \u00a0 FIRST APPEAL NO. 720 of 2003 (From the order dated 28.8.2003 passed in Complaint No. 40 of 2002 by the State Commission, Goa) \u00a0 \u00a0 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-156129","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nTata Finance Ltd. vs Francis Soeiro on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tata Finance Ltd. vs Francis Soeiro on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-20T23:31:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tata Finance Ltd. vs Francis Soeiro on 22 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-20T23:31:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1651,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Tata Finance Ltd. vs Francis Soeiro on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-20T23:31:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tata Finance Ltd. vs Francis Soeiro on 22 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Tata Finance Ltd. vs Francis Soeiro on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tata Finance Ltd. vs Francis Soeiro on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-20T23:31:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tata Finance Ltd. vs Francis Soeiro on 22 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-20T23:31:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008"},"wordCount":1651,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008","name":"Tata Finance Ltd. vs Francis Soeiro on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-20T23:31:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-finance-ltd-vs-francis-soeiro-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tata Finance Ltd. vs Francis Soeiro on 22 February, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156129","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=156129"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156129\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=156129"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=156129"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=156129"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}