{"id":185690,"date":"2006-02-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006"},"modified":"2018-05-01T05:48:06","modified_gmt":"2018-05-01T00:18:06","slug":"the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"The Managing Director, Orix Auto &#8230; vs Shri Jagmander Singh &amp; Anr on 10 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Managing Director, Orix Auto &#8230; vs Shri Jagmander Singh &amp; Anr on 10 February, 2006<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1070 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nThe Managing Director, Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd\n\nRESPONDENT:\nShri Jagmander Singh &amp; Anr\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/02\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; S.H. KAPADIA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) No.22535 of 2004)<\/p>\n<p>ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court<br \/>\ndismissing the Civil Revision filed under Section 115 of the<br \/>\nCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the &#8216;Code&#8217;).\n<\/p>\n<p>The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>Under a Hire Purchase Agreement executed between the<br \/>\nappellant (hereinafter referred to as the &#8216;Financier&#8217;) and the<br \/>\nrespondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as &#8216;Hirer&#8217;) possession<br \/>\nof truck No.HR-46-C-3689 was handed over to the hirer<br \/>\nsubject to compliance of the terms and conditions of the<br \/>\nagreement.  As per the terms and conditions stipulated in the<br \/>\nagreement, the hirer was to repay the total financed amount of<br \/>\nRs.9,24,000\/- in 33 monthly instalments of Rs.28,000\/- each.<br \/>\nAs per the agreement the first instalment was payable on<br \/>\n25.10.2000 and the last instalment was payable on 25.6.2003.<br \/>\nIn case of default in making payment of the monthly<br \/>\ninstalment the hirer was liable to pay delay charges.  Clause<br \/>\n10 of the agreement which is relevant for this purpose of this<br \/>\nappeal reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;10. In case the Hirer shall during the<br \/>\ncontinuance of this Agreement do or suffer any<br \/>\nof the following acts or things, viz. either:\n<\/p>\n<p>a.\tfail to pay any of the hiring (rent)<br \/>\ninstalments or any such monies which has<br \/>\nfallen due within the provisions of this<br \/>\nagreement, within or at the stipulated time,<br \/>\nwhether demanded or not;\n<\/p>\n<p>b.\tdie, become insolvent, or compound with<br \/>\nits creditors;\n<\/p>\n<p>c.\tthe Hirer, being a Limited Company, shall<br \/>\npass a resolution for voluntary winding up or<br \/>\nshall have a petition for winding up presented<br \/>\nagainst it or if a Receiver shall be appointed of<br \/>\nits undertaking;\n<\/p>\n<p>d.\tpledge or sell or hypothecate or charge or<br \/>\nmortgage or let or assign or attempt to pledge<br \/>\nor sell or assign or part with possession of or<br \/>\notherwise alienate or transfer the vehicle;\n<\/p>\n<p>e.\tdo or suffer any act or thing whereby or<br \/>\nin consequence of which the said vehicle may<br \/>\nbe distrained or taken in execution under legal<br \/>\nprocess or by legal process or by any public<br \/>\nauthority;\n<\/p>\n<p>f.\tfail to keep or cause the vehicle<br \/>\ncomprehensively insured during the period of<br \/>\nthe Agreement;\n<\/p>\n<p>g.\tfail to indemnify the Owner, the<br \/>\nInsurance premium paid by the Owner,<br \/>\nresulting from the Hirer&#8217;s failure to keep the<br \/>\ninsurance effective at any point of time during<br \/>\nthe currency of this Hire Agreement.\n<\/p>\n<p>h.\tfail to pay to the Government or any<br \/>\npublic authority any tax or surcharge or other<br \/>\nlevies due in respect of the vehicle;\n<\/p>\n<p>i.\tremove the vehicle to another State and<br \/>\nget it re-registered there;\n<\/p>\n<p>j.\tbreak or fail to perform or observe any of<br \/>\nthe conditions on its part herein contained.\n<\/p>\n<p>Then, on the occurrence of any such event, the<br \/>\nright of the Hirer under this Agreement shall<br \/>\nforthwith stand determined ipso facto without<br \/>\nany notice to the Hirer and all the instalments<br \/>\npreviously paid by the Hirer shall be absolutely<br \/>\nforfeited by the Owner who shall thereupon be<br \/>\nentitled to enter into any house or place where<br \/>\nthe said vehicle may then be, remove and<br \/>\nretake possession of the same and to sue for<br \/>\nall the instalments due and for damage for<br \/>\nbreach of the Agreement and for all the costs<br \/>\nof retaking possession of the said vehicle and<br \/>\nall costs occasioned by the Hirer&#8217;s default.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t(Underlined for emphasis)<\/p>\n<p>According to the financier there was default in making<br \/>\npayment of the monthly instalments and the hirer was<br \/>\nrequested to clear the amounts due by several letters.  In spite<br \/>\nof several requests\/demands the hirer did not pay the amount<br \/>\ndue and as on 27.8.2002 he was in arrears of Rs.1,34,000\/-<br \/>\non account of monthly instalments due excluding other<br \/>\ncharges payable on account of delay in making payment.<br \/>\nAccordingly, the appellant repossessed the vehicle on<br \/>\n27.8.2002.  According to the financier in view of the violation<br \/>\nof the terms by the hirer the agreement stood terminated.<br \/>\nTherefore, by registered letter dated 27.8.2002 the financier<br \/>\ncalled upon the hirer to pay a sum of Rs.4,27,485\/- which was<br \/>\nthe amount due.  The notice stipulated that the amount was to<br \/>\nbe paid within 10 days from the date of the receipt of the<br \/>\nletter. The hirer did not make any payment and on the other<br \/>\nhand made a false complaint to the Reserve Bank of India (in<br \/>\nshort &#8216;RBI&#8217;), and   filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge,<br \/>\nSenior Division, Sonepat for declaration with consequential<br \/>\nreliefs and permanent injunction along with mandatory<br \/>\ninjunction.  In the said civil suit the hirer also filed application<br \/>\nunder Order XXXIX Rules 1 &amp; 2 read with Section 151 of the<br \/>\nCode praying for interim relief.  On receipt of the summons,<br \/>\nwritten statement was filed by the appellant. The matter was<br \/>\ntaken up 13.9.2002.  A prayer was made for an adjournment<br \/>\nof the date as learned counsel for the appellant had met with<br \/>\nan accident.  The matter was adjourned for arguments on the<br \/>\nsaid application on 27.9.2002.  But at the same time learned<br \/>\nCivil Judge directed the appellant to release the vehicle subject<br \/>\nto deposit of the balance of instalments along with interest<br \/>\namounting to Rs.1,61,504\/-.  The said order was the subject-<br \/>\nmatter of challenge in Civil Revision No.4680\/2002.  Initially<br \/>\nthe High Court had granted stay of the operation of the order.<br \/>\nThe hirer filed an application for vacation of the order of stay.<br \/>\nBy the impugned order the High Court dismissed the Civil<br \/>\nRevision upholding the order passed by the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>According to learned counsel for the appellant the order<br \/>\npassed is clearly unsustainable.  The suit filed was not<br \/>\nmaintainable.  While passing order for release, the trial Court<br \/>\ndid not take note of the fact that according to the appellant the<br \/>\narrears were much higher than the defaulted instalments. It<br \/>\nwas not considered by the Trial Court as to how the appellant<br \/>\nwould recover its dues if the suit was ultimately dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand<br \/>\nsubmitted that the re-possession as taken by the appellant<br \/>\nwas clearly contrary to law.  Merely because the hirer had<br \/>\nsigned the agreement which permitted re-possession that<br \/>\nwould not give arbitrary power to the financier to take<br \/>\npossession of the vehicle.  It was pointed out that in several<br \/>\ncases different High Courts have deprecated the practices of<br \/>\nthe financers taking possession of the financed vehicles.\n<\/p>\n<p>By order dated 16.11.2004 while issuing notice interim<br \/>\nstay was granted subject to the opposite party-respondent<br \/>\ndepositing Rs.2,50,000\/- with the Registry of this Court within<br \/>\nfour weeks without prejudice to the claims involved.<br \/>\nAdmittedly the amount has been deposited.\n<\/p>\n<p>So far as the question of re-possession is concerned, it is<br \/>\nclearly permissible in terms of Clause 10 of the Hire purchase<br \/>\nagreement referred to above.  What ultimately is to be decided<br \/>\nby the Trial Court in the suit is the amount to which the<br \/>\nappellant is entitled to.  Learned counsel for the appellant has<br \/>\nsubmitted that without taking note of the defaulted amount<br \/>\nwhich according to him is in the neighbourhood of Rs.10<br \/>\nlakhs, the vehicle was directed to be released on payment of<br \/>\nthe defaulted instalments. The said amount has also been<br \/>\ndeposited.  But at the same time it was imperative for the High<br \/>\nCourt to ensure that in the event the suit is dismissed, and<br \/>\nthe hirer is liable to pay the amount, how the same is secured.<br \/>\nIt is not disputed that the vehicle if not used would lose its<br \/>\nvalue.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case we direct that<br \/>\nin case the respondent no.1-hirer pays the appellant a sum of<br \/>\nRs.1,50,000\/- in addition to the amount already deposited<br \/>\nwithin 10 days from today, the vehicle shall be released.  The<br \/>\nrespondents shall file an undertaking before the Trial Court<br \/>\nthat in the event of non-success the vehicle shall be returned<br \/>\nto the financier, unless the Trial Court fixes some other terms.<br \/>\nIt is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the<br \/>\nmerits of the case which shall be decided in accordance with<br \/>\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n<p>Before we part with the case, it is relevant to take note of<br \/>\nsubmission of learned counsel for the Hirer that in several<br \/>\ncases different High Courts have passed orders regarding the<br \/>\nright to re-possess where the High Courts have entertained<br \/>\nwrit petitions including writ petitions styled as PIL on the<br \/>\nquestion of right of financiers to take possession of the vehicle<br \/>\nin terms of the agreement.  It is stated that directions have<br \/>\nbeen given to the RBI for framing guidelines in this regard. If it<br \/>\nis really so, the orders prima facie have no legal foundation, as<br \/>\nvirtually while dealing with writ petitions subsisting contracts<br \/>\nare being re-written.  It is still more surprising that petitions<br \/>\nstyled as PIL are being entertained in this regard.  Essentially<br \/>\nthese are matters of contract and unless the party succeeds in<br \/>\nshowing that the contract is unconscionable or opposed to<br \/>\npublic policy the scope of interference in writ petitions in such<br \/>\ncontractual matters is practically non-existence. If agreements<br \/>\npermit the financier to take possession of the financed<br \/>\nvehicles, there is no legal impediment on such possession<br \/>\nbeing taken. Of course, the hirer can avail such statutory<br \/>\nremedy as may be available. But mere fact that possession has<br \/>\nbeen taken cannot be a ground to contend that the hirer is<br \/>\nprejudiced. Stand of learned counsel for the respondent that<br \/>\nconvenience of the hirer cannot be overlooked and improper<br \/>\nseizure cannot be made. There cannot be any generalization in<br \/>\nsuch matters. It would depend upon facts of each case. It<br \/>\nwould not be therefore proper for the High Courts to lay down<br \/>\nany guideline which would in essence amount to variation of<br \/>\nthe agreed terms of the agreement.  If any such order has been<br \/>\npassed effect of the same shall be considered by the concerned<br \/>\nHigh Court in the light of this judgment and appropriate<br \/>\norders shall be passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No orders<br \/>\nas to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India The Managing Director, Orix Auto &#8230; vs Shri Jagmander Singh &amp; Anr on 10 February, 2006 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1070 of 2006 PETITIONER: The Managing Director, Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd RESPONDENT: Shri Jagmander Singh &amp; Anr DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/02\/2006 BENCH: [&hellip;]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-185690","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Managing Director, Orix Auto ... vs Shri Jagmander Singh &amp; Anr on 10 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Managing Director, Orix Auto ... vs Shri Jagmander Singh &amp; Anr on 10 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-01T00:18:06+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\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Managing Director, Orix Auto &#8230; vs Shri Jagmander Singh &amp; Anr on 10 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-01T00:18:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1723,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006\",\"name\":\"The Managing Director, Orix Auto ... vs Shri Jagmander Singh &amp; Anr on 10 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-01T00:18:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Managing Director, Orix Auto &#8230; vs Shri Jagmander Singh &amp; Anr on 10 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"The Managing Director, Orix Auto ... vs Shri Jagmander Singh &amp; Anr on 10 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Managing Director, Orix Auto ... vs Shri Jagmander Singh &amp; Anr on 10 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-01T00:18:06+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\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Managing Director, Orix Auto &#8230; vs Shri Jagmander Singh &amp; Anr on 10 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-01T00:18:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006"},"wordCount":1723,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006","name":"The Managing Director, Orix Auto ... vs Shri Jagmander Singh &amp; Anr on 10 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-01T00:18:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-managing-director-orix-auto-vs-shri-jagmander-singh-anr-on-10-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Managing Director, Orix Auto &#8230; vs Shri Jagmander Singh &amp; Anr on 10 February, 2006"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/185690","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=185690"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185690\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185690"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185690"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185690"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}