Full Text
Translation output
CRL. M.C. 4451/2017 & CRL.M.C. 477/2018
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: January 30, 2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: January 30, 2019
CRL.M.C. 4451/2017
SUDHIR KAPOOR & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Anupam Dwivedi, Advocate.
SUDHIR KAPOOR & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Anupam Dwivedi, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Vikam S. Panwar, Mr.Vikas Walia, Mr.Naveen Kumar and
Mr.Akhilesh Singh Rawat, Advs. for R2.
Through: Mr.Vikam S. Panwar, Mr.Vikas Walia, Mr.Naveen Kumar and
Mr.Akhilesh Singh Rawat, Advs. for R2.
CRL.M.C. 477/2018
MONTO JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rajesh Khanna, Advocate.
MONTO JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rajesh Khanna, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Vikam S. Panwar, Mr.Vikas Walia, Mr.Naveen Kumar and
Mr.Akhilesh Singh Rawat, Advocates for Respondent No. 2
Through: Mr.Vikam S. Panwar, Mr.Vikas Walia, Mr.Naveen Kumar and
Mr.Akhilesh Singh Rawat, Advocates for Respondent No. 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
In the above captioned petitions, the challenge is to the concurrent findings returned by the courts below regarding release of five vehicles in
2019:DHC:625 question on superdari to the respondent-financer of the vehicles, as the case put-forth is that ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) of vehicles in question are forged and these vehicles have been sold by respondents-
Monika, Krishan Raj and Santosh Kumar Rai to petitioners herein.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Learned counsel for the petitioners assails the revisional order of
13th September, 2017 on the ground that Supreme Court in Rajendra
Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2001) 10 SCC 88 has clarified that the vehicles on superdari are required to be released to the ostensible name holder in the registration certificate and the vehicles are not to be kept idle.
Counsel for respondent-financer submits that reliance placed upon
Supreme Court’s decision of Rajendra Prasad (supra) is of no avail, as the registration of the vehicles in question has been transferred in the name of petitioners on the basis of forged NOC. So, it is submitted that these petitions deserve to be dismissed.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, status report, material on record and the decision cited, I find that Supreme Court’s decision in Rajendra Prasad (supra) is of no assistance to the case of petitioners, as in the instant case, NOC’s, on the basis of which vehicle in question have been transferred in the name of petitioners, have been found to be forged, as per FSL report of July, 2018. In such a situation, the courts below have aptly held that the vehicles in question are to be released on superdari to the respondent-financer. Finding no palpable error in the impugned orders, both these petitions are dismissed while not expressing any opinion on merits of the case.
The above captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 30, 2019 neelam
In the above captioned petitions, the challenge is to the concurrent findings returned by the courts below regarding release of five vehicles in
2019:DHC:625 question on superdari to the respondent-financer of the vehicles, as the case put-forth is that ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) of vehicles in question are forged and these vehicles have been sold by respondents-
Monika, Krishan Raj and Santosh Kumar Rai to petitioners herein.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Learned counsel for the petitioners assails the revisional order of
13th September, 2017 on the ground that Supreme Court in Rajendra
Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2001) 10 SCC 88 has clarified that the vehicles on superdari are required to be released to the ostensible name holder in the registration certificate and the vehicles are not to be kept idle.
Counsel for respondent-financer submits that reliance placed upon
Supreme Court’s decision of Rajendra Prasad (supra) is of no avail, as the registration of the vehicles in question has been transferred in the name of petitioners on the basis of forged NOC. So, it is submitted that these petitions deserve to be dismissed.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, status report, material on record and the decision cited, I find that Supreme Court’s decision in Rajendra Prasad (supra) is of no assistance to the case of petitioners, as in the instant case, NOC’s, on the basis of which vehicle in question have been transferred in the name of petitioners, have been found to be forged, as per FSL report of July, 2018. In such a situation, the courts below have aptly held that the vehicles in question are to be released on superdari to the respondent-financer. Finding no palpable error in the impugned orders, both these petitions are dismissed while not expressing any opinion on merits of the case.
The above captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 30, 2019 neelam
JUDGMENT