Credit Corporation (Fiji) Ltd v Lal [2002] FJHC 45; Hbc0259.2001s (6 April 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
(AT SUVA)

CIVIL ACTION NO. HBC 259 OF 2001S

Between:

CREDIT CORPORATION (FIJI) LIMITED
Plaintiff

and

BABU LAL
(f/n Mahesh Prasad)
Defendant

V. Kapadia for the Plaintiff
Defendant in person

DECISION

These are proceedings for committal of the Defendant pursuant to leave granted on 15 August 2001.

The Plaintiff’s case is that on 18 January 2000 the Defendant entered into an asset purchase agreement for the purchase of a Nissan 10 wheeler lorry registration number DN 946 valued at approximately at $76,000. By the end of 2000 the Defendant had already fallen into arrears and steps were taken to repossess the vehicle. After difficulties was experienced in recovering the vehicle an injunction was sought and obtained from Byrne J on 12 June 2001. The Defendant was ordered to return the vehicle.

The vehicle was recovered from the Defendant on 14 June 2001. According to two affidavits filed by Uday Raj Sen, the first in July 2001 and the second in October 2001 the vehicle when recovered was missing a large number of parts. These included the engine, gear box, drive shaft, alternator, radiator, tyres, fuel tank and seats. The total value of the parts said to be missing was $51,758.

Having today heard three witnesses called by the Plaintiff as well as the Defendant I am in no doubt whatever that the Defendant has wilfully disobeyed the order of Byrne J dated 12 June 2001 by failing to return to the Plaintiff approximately $50,000 worth of parts which either he or his agent removed from DN 946.

At the beginning of the hearing I suggested to Mr. Kapadia who appeared for the Plaintiff that the value of committing a person in these circumstances is limited. The Defendant told me that he was unemployed and had a family to support. Mr. Kapadia told me that the Plaintiff took the view that the Defendant’s conduct was so flagrantly dishonest that it was necessary to take these proceedings.

Prayer (c) of the writ filed on 8 June 2001 sought damages from the Defendant. Under Order 52 rule 6 of the High Court Rules the court may order that the execution of an order for committal be suspended for such period or on such terms as may be specified. Under these powers I order that the Defendant be committed to prison for 3 months. The order will be suspended upon payment by the Defendant into the High Court registry at Suva on the first Monday of each month beginning 6 May 2002 of a sum not less than $500 until the whole sum which I reassess at $50,000 is paid of.

There will be liberty to both parties to apply for further directions.

M.D. Scott
Judge

6 April 2002