Meru cab drivers have appealed against the single judge order that directs the court receiver to forcibly take possession of the fleet cabs. The direction has come owing to the drivers' failure to make the necessary daily payments to the company.
The cab drivers have challenged the order passed in October in an arbitration petition initiated by the company, seeking directions to 11 drivers to return vehicles in a good condition along with the hardware and GPS installed in the cabs.
The appeal filed by advocates Amir Arsiwala and Nikhil Mengde will come up for hearing on December 8. The appeal claims that the order of the single judge is illegal, bad-in-law, contrary to the provisions of law, good conscience and amounts to gross miscarriage of justice and, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Countering the claim that drivers entered into an agreement with the company to own the cars after paying a daily subscription charge of Rs 1,060 for 58 months, it says, "Drivers were paying the daily amount not under the alleged subscription agreement but as installments towards the purchase of the vehicles. Therefore, the subscription agreement is of no value or consequence for the purposes of this petition."
The company had approached the high court after drivers, who entered into an agreement with the company in July 2013, whereby they became owners of the vehicles after payment of Rs1,060 and a one-time deposit of Rs40,000, defaulted on the payments.
Since March, drivers against the rules laid down in the agreement stopped plying the cabs and started defaulting on the payment. The company issued a notice to them and later terminated the agreement, asking them to return the cabs.
However, drivers did not return the vehicles, and in fact removed the GPS and other hardware installed in the radio cabs, making it difficult for the company to track vehicles.
The court, after going through the contracts and the payment records of the drivers, noted that the company had rightfully proved that the drivers were bound by the 2013 contract and not the earlier one. Thus, it appointed a court receiver to take possession of the cabs.
